Popular in Psychology

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Most Cited

The adapted mind

Dalhousie University Jerome Barkow

Experimental Psychology

Time to investigate human visual shape perception

University of Montreal Martin Arguin

Most Cited

James S. Jackson and the program for research on Black Americans

Harvard University David R. Williams

Psychology

Violence and Mental Illness: Rethinking Risk Factors and Enhancing Public Safety

Duke University Eric Elbogen

Cognitive Psychology

Cognitive remediation – where are we now and what should we do next?

King's College London Til Wykes

Beyond Predatory Peace

View more insights in Social Sciences - Psychology - Criminology

View more figures from Australian National University

View the page of John Braithwaite

Read the Study

John Braithwaite discusses an autobiographical review about a research life unusually oriented to the long-term study of organizational crime, peace, and crisis prevention.

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 19, 2023

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The speaker discusses how graduate students often seek current hot topics for their research but cautions against merely following trends, as this can lead to "fighting yesterday's war." He emphasizes the importance of long-term thinking and interdisciplinary approaches, highlighting the structural issues within academia that make reform challenging.

Reflecting on his early activism in consumer protection, he shares experiences with the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, where he initially criticized the appointment of industry insiders, only to later acknowledge their competence and engage in fruitful discussions. He recounts a significant legal case surrounding the dangers of passive smoking, which drew international attention and influenced smoking regulations.

The speaker also delves into his personal life, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and learning through relationships, particularly with his partner Valerie. Throughout a long marriage, they've contributed to each other’s intellectual growth, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue.

He expresses optimism for universities, asserting their crucial role in promoting new ideas and societal change. Although he notes challenges such as corporate influence, he believes universities remain vital institutions for innovation and progress. The speaker concludes by reflecting on the importance of collaboration and the impact of younger generations in transforming academia and society, affirming that the collective contributions of students often surpass individual efforts.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.525 --> 00:03.725
Graduate students often say to me, what's a really hot,

00:04.025 --> 00:08.045
hot topic that I can focus on with my, with my work?

00:09.005 --> 00:12.905
And I say, well, you know, to ask an old guy like me,

00:12.945 --> 00:15.065
a question like that is maybe not the,

00:15.325 --> 00:18.425
not the right question, because the answer you might get is,

00:19.205 --> 00:22.305
you know, you might end up fighting yesterday's war,

00:22.725 --> 00:25.865
and there's a danger if you think what to do yourself there,

00:25.865 --> 00:29.105
you'll, you'll end up fighting tomorrow's war rather,

00:29.205 --> 00:31.145
rather than today's war.

00:31.145 --> 00:32.865
But that's not as big a mistake

00:33.485 --> 00:35.985
in the long term if you are backing the wrong horse

00:36.645 --> 00:39.465
in the short term, that's all right.

00:39.885 --> 00:43.065
If your thinking is sound in the long run,

00:43.595 --> 00:46.025
there will be people who will come to your project

00:46.285 --> 00:49.625
and see the value that you see in it, you know, failure's.

00:49.655 --> 00:52.385
Okay? Especially if you have that long run view.

00:52.405 --> 00:56.685
And it's not as if I stayed with the same

00:57.315 --> 00:58.405
long run race.

00:58.605 --> 01:02.685
I mean, I didn't make radical shifts in the short term,

01:03.145 --> 01:06.965
but in the long run, I made big shifts by gradually changing

01:07.745 --> 01:10.485
my focus and, and adjusting.

01:10.825 --> 01:14.925
And I think that, that, that, well, it worked for, for me.

01:15.465 --> 01:19.805
Um, I, I, I did try to reform a lot

01:19.805 --> 01:21.925
of institutions, including universities.

01:22.005 --> 01:25.285
I mean, universities are very hard institutions to reform

01:25.435 --> 01:28.805
because they're, they're pretty balkanized institutions

01:28.805 --> 01:31.805
where you have these, these kings

01:31.805 --> 01:36.245
and queens that, sit on top of, disciplinary,

01:36.555 --> 01:38.085
empires, and they defend them.

01:38.105 --> 01:41.205
If, and if you are a change agent who says that, you know,

01:41.505 --> 01:43.805
we, we should be thinking about a more

01:43.805 --> 01:44.925
interdisciplinary project.

01:45.025 --> 01:47.685
And I mean, I, I have a pretty radical view about the

01:47.685 --> 01:50.285
problems with the current structure of the social sciences.

01:50.605 --> 01:53.405
I think it's a pretty dumb idea to have a bunch of people

01:53.945 --> 01:56.285
who study an institution called the economy

01:56.425 --> 01:57.925
and call themselves economists

01:57.985 --> 02:01.605
and another group who study political institution,

02:01.675 --> 02:05.205
call 'em political sciences, lawyers, do legal institute,

02:05.265 --> 02:06.605
cri we criminologists,

02:06.605 --> 02:08.725
do criminal justice institutions

02:08.725 --> 02:09.965
like the police and the prison.

02:10.285 --> 02:14.485
I think that's a really dumb way of organizing,

02:14.745 --> 02:16.045
the advancement of knowledge.

02:16.045 --> 02:19.245
And I think we could learn a lot from the big shifts

02:19.245 --> 02:22.285
that have occurred in the biological sciences, for example.

02:22.435 --> 02:25.885
It's enabled them to be rather better at breakthroughs than

02:25.885 --> 02:27.765
we have been in the social sciences.

02:28.065 --> 02:32.165
You know, trying too hard, hard to bang your head

02:32.675 --> 02:36.845
against those disciplinary barriers is, is not a good as,

02:36.985 --> 02:41.085
as good a path as just doing your own thing, showing,

02:41.585 --> 02:45.305
trying to show that what you do is valuable.

02:45.365 --> 02:49.145
And again, that long run race of bringing people

02:49.525 --> 02:51.025
to see the value in your project

02:51.025 --> 02:52.585
because you do something well

02:52.845 --> 02:54.745
and hopefully do something a bit better

02:55.015 --> 02:56.985
because it is interdisciplinary.

02:57.495 --> 02:59.885
Well, in the, in the days when I was young,

02:59.945 --> 03:01.885
the consumer movement was a big thing.

03:01.905 --> 03:05.285
You know, Ralph Nader was a friend of, of, of mine.

03:05.385 --> 03:06.405
And, and we were,

03:06.905 --> 03:10.565
we were change agents on things like consumer product

03:10.585 --> 03:12.605
safety, making cars safer,

03:12.625 --> 03:14.405
and getting seat belts made

03:15.125 --> 03:17.605
mandated in motor vehicles and, and so on.

03:17.805 --> 03:19.325
That was what I was doing when I was young.

03:19.745 --> 03:22.085
Uh, not being a, an an an academic,

03:22.225 --> 03:24.085
but being, being an advocate.

03:24.185 --> 03:28.485
And in that role, I, I issued a press release, saying

03:28.485 --> 03:29.805
that recent appointments

03:30.305 --> 03:33.005
to our National Competition Authority

03:33.025 --> 03:36.525
and Consumer Protection Authority, the Australian Consumer

03:36.665 --> 03:39.765
and Competition Commission, as it's called, today,

03:39.785 --> 03:42.925
was putting the foxes in charge of the chickens coop.

03:42.925 --> 03:47.045
That was how, how my press release was, was, was headed.

03:47.545 --> 03:50.845
And, and indeed it was, it, it, there was some of that,

03:51.225 --> 03:55.485
in it that, there, there, there was one person

03:55.785 --> 03:57.005
who was from the company.

03:57.065 --> 03:59.045
It was the CEO of the company

03:59.185 --> 04:01.165
who had the worst compliance record,

04:01.665 --> 04:06.245
the worst criminal prosecution conviction record of,

04:06.345 --> 04:08.205
any Australian, company.

04:08.625 --> 04:11.645
And I was a bit embarrassed a few years later when the,

04:12.225 --> 04:16.405
when the government, a new government responded, to

04:16.405 --> 04:19.445
that critique by pointing me to the commission.

04:19.625 --> 04:22.165
And then I found that some of those people,

04:22.255 --> 04:25.125
about whom I was saying that was the, the foxes in charge

04:25.185 --> 04:28.445
of the chicken coop were actually a lot more competent at

04:28.465 --> 04:32.525
the job of being commissioners of the a accc by virtue

04:33.025 --> 04:36.565
of their business background, than I was,

04:36.595 --> 04:37.805
they were very kind to me.

04:37.825 --> 04:40.765
And we had many jokes, about,

04:41.255 --> 04:45.365
about my history in getting in into that position.

04:45.665 --> 04:50.525
But it was a rewarding institution to engage

04:50.555 --> 04:54.085
with because it was a conversational institution

04:54.085 --> 04:56.645
where we could talk to each other about our differences,

04:57.015 --> 04:59.805
those who came from a business background, those

04:59.825 --> 05:01.645
who came from an academic background.

05:01.645 --> 05:05.965
And by then, I'd morphed from being,

05:06.025 --> 05:09.885
an activist to being an academic, other kinds of background,

05:10.535 --> 05:12.005
again, practicing lawyers.

05:12.505 --> 05:14.325
Uh, one of the people who was appointed at

05:14.325 --> 05:16.845
that time really was so much better at the job

05:16.845 --> 05:19.685
that ended up, other people thought that, not just me,

05:20.045 --> 05:22.285
'cause he ended up becoming Chief Justice of Australia.

05:22.625 --> 05:24.765
But with an institution like that, I mean, again,

05:24.835 --> 05:27.005
your role is a small one.

05:27.505 --> 05:28.765
You are a contributor.

05:29.385 --> 05:33.085
You engage in a conversational way with the institution.

05:33.465 --> 05:37.325
And if you engage in good faith in a genuine way,

05:37.825 --> 05:41.125
and with some good ideas, which are sometimes right,

05:41.125 --> 05:45.165
sometimes are wrong, other people who are

05:45.705 --> 05:49.645
better at the craft of institutional change than you are

05:50.385 --> 05:51.885
end up joining your cause.

05:52.145 --> 05:56.885
And together, you can at times,

05:57.535 --> 05:58.885
bring about some big changes.

05:59.505 --> 06:02.325
And there, there were some, in those days

06:02.395 --> 06:05.965
with the Competition Commission, the chairman

06:06.025 --> 06:07.605
of the commission at the time

06:07.675 --> 06:11.965
that I put out my famous press release, was also,

06:12.035 --> 06:13.365
from a business background.

06:14.065 --> 06:17.045
Uh, he, and he came,

06:17.235 --> 06:21.165
from the largest tobacco manufacturer in Australia.

06:22.505 --> 06:25.805
Uh, I was critical of his appointment,

06:25.825 --> 06:28.765
but I learned that he was a very capable lawyer

06:29.385 --> 06:32.685
and was bringing some lawyerly excellence to the work

06:32.685 --> 06:34.605
of the commission that wasn't there before.

06:35.385 --> 06:37.005
But he also,

06:37.635 --> 06:40.285
brought some baggage from his background in the industry.

06:40.305 --> 06:43.045
And very early on, there was a case

06:43.135 --> 06:46.165
where the Australian Tobacco Institute, Institute

06:47.005 --> 06:48.365
representing the tobacco industry,

06:48.745 --> 06:52.445
put out an advertisement in all of the big newspapers,

06:52.915 --> 06:57.285
women's magazines, everywhere in Australia at the time

06:57.585 --> 06:59.725
of passive smoking becoming an issue.

07:00.185 --> 07:03.445
And this advertisement said that passive smoking

07:04.025 --> 07:05.205
is not a health risk.

07:05.385 --> 07:07.925
If you are just getting indirect smoke from other people,

07:08.315 --> 07:11.245
it's not gonna adversely affect your health.

07:12.005 --> 07:15.285
We had a complaint from the NGO sector,

07:15.315 --> 07:20.205
including from my own old NGO, that said,

07:20.595 --> 07:23.125
this advertisement was in breach of

07:23.125 --> 07:26.325
what was then called the Trade Practices, act

07:26.325 --> 07:29.165
because it was a false claim pass.

07:29.345 --> 07:33.685
The evidence now by now is clear, this is in the 1980s,

07:33.795 --> 07:36.685
that, sm a passive inhalation

07:36.685 --> 07:38.845
of cigarette smoking is very dangerous for yal,

07:38.855 --> 07:39.965
especially for children.

07:40.865 --> 07:44.565
And, what he did, the chair of the commission,

07:44.945 --> 07:49.645
having come from the tobacco industry, literally in a smoke,

07:49.845 --> 07:52.445
smoke-filled room, negotiated

07:53.445 --> 07:54.845
a remedial advertisement.

07:54.945 --> 07:58.605
So the Tobacco Institute put out a new advertisement saying,

07:58.785 --> 08:02.325
we want to correct somewhat what we said in our former ad.

08:02.325 --> 08:03.605
This resulted in a court case.

08:04.185 --> 08:08.485
Uh, it also resulted in me, going

08:08.505 --> 08:10.325
to the commission, the going to the chairman

08:10.385 --> 08:12.405
and saying that was inappropriate.

08:13.285 --> 08:17.485
I in particular, should have been in that smoke filled room

08:17.815 --> 08:21.085
where you did that deal, with the old industry.

08:21.085 --> 08:24.285
And I agree with this new complaint that's come in

08:24.285 --> 08:28.245
that says, the new ad is also in breach of our act,

08:28.245 --> 08:30.685
in breach of the act that you have a responsibility.

08:31.425 --> 08:34.125
Any rate. The, on appeal federal court

08:34.505 --> 08:36.685
and Australia found exactly the same thing.

08:37.025 --> 08:39.205
And it was a very influential case.

08:39.425 --> 08:43.285
It changed behavior in the United States, in Europe

08:43.675 --> 08:46.205
because it was the first time that a court,

08:46.705 --> 08:50.245
an appellate court, had made a formal decision that, yes,

08:50.305 --> 08:54.765
we find that the factual situation is that tobacco,

08:54.995 --> 08:57.125
passive smoking is dangerous for your health.

08:57.385 --> 08:59.965
And that mean meant that all of the organizations

08:59.995 --> 09:03.565
that we work in realize that that could be used

09:04.065 --> 09:05.685
for lawsuits against them.

09:06.075 --> 09:09.645
That judicial authority would be followed by the judiciaries

09:09.665 --> 09:10.805
of other countries,

09:10.805 --> 09:12.525
especially in the English speaking world.

09:12.865 --> 09:15.845
So, in no time, even in,

09:17.165 --> 09:19.365
American baseball grounds, everyone was amazed

09:19.755 --> 09:22.325
that a high degree of compliance was achieved.

09:22.385 --> 09:25.765
And even in an open air stadium, people in no time

09:25.905 --> 09:28.165
as a result of that court decision,

09:28.195 --> 09:31.965
were being prevented from smoking, in the,

09:32.185 --> 09:35.285
in the stadium, there was a lot of opposition,

09:35.745 --> 09:38.085
but people complied.

09:38.315 --> 09:42.085
Even, even those American baseball fans, complied.

09:42.425 --> 09:45.205
So that was a big, that was a big change.

09:45.715 --> 09:48.045
That was a result of robust engagement.

09:48.305 --> 09:53.245
And it wasn't so much my personal contribution as again,

09:53.255 --> 09:57.965
again, sure I started the, the contest over it,

09:58.185 --> 10:02.245
but it was other people that made the real difference,

10:02.355 --> 10:05.005
that drove that throughout the world system

10:05.185 --> 10:08.525
as a big change in how we live our lives in regard

10:08.525 --> 10:09.605
to smoking cigarettes.

10:09.885 --> 10:11.725
Valerie Brafa and I, we came from different,

10:12.065 --> 10:13.125
disciplines.

10:13.385 --> 10:16.125
Um, it was a long-term relationship.

10:16.445 --> 10:20.605
I I met her at kindergarten when we were five years of age,

10:20.745 --> 10:23.285
and we, we had some conflicts at that time,

10:23.465 --> 10:25.765
but we gradually got to know each other

10:26.425 --> 10:28.845
and married at quite a, quite a young age.

10:28.945 --> 10:30.245
So we've been married

10:30.305 --> 10:33.525
for much more than half a century, by now.

10:33.945 --> 10:37.525
Uh, and while we were very different kinds

10:37.525 --> 10:42.485
of intellectuals from different disciplines, we shared

10:43.155 --> 10:45.325
this interest in interdisciplinarity,

10:45.825 --> 10:48.645
and we talked to each other in our relationship,

10:48.705 --> 10:52.045
and I learned so much from Val and acquired good things.

10:52.685 --> 10:56.125
I think about, her style, which took off some

10:56.125 --> 10:57.205
of my rough edges.

10:57.225 --> 10:59.645
And, in, in particular.

10:59.705 --> 11:02.605
So you, you know, you learn in life conversationally,

11:02.605 --> 11:04.925
from colleagues and especially from ones that you are,

11:05.305 --> 11:06.565
you are, close to.

11:06.585 --> 11:09.045
So it's, it's not just relevant to an academic couple,

11:09.115 --> 11:11.005
it's relevant to all of us.

11:11.105 --> 11:13.645
You, you know, you trust your friends so much

11:13.645 --> 11:16.125
that they will talk to you bluntly about

11:16.475 --> 11:18.285
what are your weaknesses, how you could do

11:18.285 --> 11:19.725
better, what are your strengths?

11:19.995 --> 11:21.245
This is your strengths. You should do

11:21.245 --> 11:22.325
more of this kind of stuff.

11:23.025 --> 11:24.285
Um,

11:25.025 --> 11:28.165
and, that, that's certainly the way it worked with,

11:28.515 --> 11:30.645
with Val and I, and we ended up doing a lot

11:30.645 --> 11:32.605
of things together when we were young.

11:32.625 --> 11:33.805
We used to fight a lot.

11:34.265 --> 11:36.285
You know, when you, like, when you come home from work,

11:36.305 --> 11:39.805
you like to complain about your colleagues at work

11:39.865 --> 11:43.125
to your partner, but when the co-author you want

11:43.125 --> 11:44.685
to complain about is in fact your

11:44.685 --> 11:45.925
partner, that's a bit difficult.

11:46.065 --> 11:47.405
So we had to adjust to that,

11:47.585 --> 11:49.125
and we gave up with collaborating

11:49.125 --> 11:50.445
with each other for a little while.

11:50.665 --> 11:52.925
And then when we were more mature

11:53.105 --> 11:56.325
In our relationship, we came back again,

11:56.385 --> 11:57.605
to working together.

11:57.985 --> 11:59.445
So it went, that went on and off.

12:00.305 --> 12:01.925
The relationship didn't go on and off,

12:01.925 --> 12:02.965
but that went on and off.

12:03.385 --> 12:06.605
Uh, during that half a century, macro Criminology

12:06.705 --> 12:10.315
and Freedom Book was a book that brought together

12:10.895 --> 12:12.915
my life's work as, as it were.

12:13.295 --> 12:16.835
Uh, most people find it far too long a, a book,

12:16.895 --> 12:18.595
but it's available open access.

12:18.735 --> 12:21.715
So you just look up John Braithwaite macro criminology and,

12:21.975 --> 12:24.995
and freedom, and, you can jump in

12:24.995 --> 12:28.715
and read those bits, that are of interest to you by,

12:29.335 --> 12:31.235
by searching on the search function.

12:31.295 --> 12:34.475
But when you do try to bring,

12:35.195 --> 12:37.995
a life's work together in a more integrated way,

12:38.535 --> 12:41.955
it integrates it in a different way than most people

12:42.505 --> 12:45.875
integrate lots of little different bits of knowledge

12:45.875 --> 12:50.835
with a big macro theory about how you change the nature

12:50.975 --> 12:54.835
of society to become a society in which there's less

12:54.835 --> 12:56.035
crime and less war.

12:56.255 --> 12:59.835
War is important. And there's the idea of cascades of crime

12:59.835 --> 13:00.955
and war in importance.

13:00.975 --> 13:04.595
So crime is seen as a cascade phenomenon.

13:04.975 --> 13:07.595
So in the United States, they have a real problem

13:08.105 --> 13:09.235
with mass shootings.

13:09.335 --> 13:13.075
And one big reason that they have such a big problem

13:13.465 --> 13:16.795
with mass shootings compared with other societies, is

13:16.795 --> 13:19.475
that they've had so many other mass shootings

13:20.275 --> 13:21.335
in the recent past.

13:21.515 --> 13:25.815
So crime cascades to more crime, unfortunately.

13:26.075 --> 13:30.015
So each extra incident that occurs, it becomes,

13:30.335 --> 13:33.935
a lot more difficult, to shut it down,

13:34.325 --> 13:38.775
even if you succeed in shooting down wrong metaphor.

13:39.115 --> 13:43.335
Uh, the initial causes, such as inadequate gun,

13:43.795 --> 13:44.895
gun control.

13:45.115 --> 13:48.255
So also crime tends to cascade to war

13:48.355 --> 13:51.615
and war to crime, as we see at the moment, with a lot

13:51.615 --> 13:53.575
of hate crime associated

13:53.605 --> 13:56.095
with the conflict in Gaza at the moment,

13:56.235 --> 13:59.255
but in many different ways, war cascades to crime,

13:59.555 --> 14:03.895
and also regrettably war cascades to more wars.

14:04.435 --> 14:07.935
So if you live in a neighborhood where some

14:07.935 --> 14:10.535
of your neighbors are getting themselves into wars,

14:10.535 --> 14:14.815
unfortunately your country will be more likely,

14:14.875 --> 14:16.335
to end up in more wars.

14:16.355 --> 14:19.135
And that's something that's exercising the minds

14:19.135 --> 14:22.775
of diplomats in Europe at the moment, for good reasons.

14:23.475 --> 14:28.415
Uh, of course. So it's about those big macro questions that,

14:28.875 --> 14:33.655
in the end come down to very, private matters

14:33.715 --> 14:35.295
and how to make the public private.

14:35.795 --> 14:40.415
It seeks to get there by integrating an explanatory theory

14:40.435 --> 14:43.055
of crime with a normative theory of crime.

14:43.195 --> 14:45.775
So an explanatory theory is an ordered set

14:45.775 --> 14:47.615
of propositions about the way the world is,

14:47.675 --> 14:50.655
and a normative theory is an ordered set of

14:50.655 --> 14:53.845
Propositions about the way the world ought to be.

14:54.505 --> 14:57.765
So I try to find propositions

14:57.955 --> 15:00.205
that come from explanatory theory,

15:00.205 --> 15:03.605
that advance normative theory, that are a fit

15:03.625 --> 15:04.805
to both kinds of theory.

15:05.345 --> 15:09.845
And the book argues that, that improve both kinds of theory.

15:09.865 --> 15:12.605
That's been a long-term joint project of mine

15:12.605 --> 15:15.285
with the great philosopher, Philip Petit.

15:15.825 --> 15:19.645
And then the book that's coming out soon is called,

15:19.945 --> 15:23.565
simple Problems to Complex Catastrophe.

15:23.585 --> 15:25.885
And it's about the ideas. Take, take the example

15:25.885 --> 15:28.685
of reforming, universities.

15:29.245 --> 15:31.125
I was saying earlier, it is very hard to know

15:31.955 --> 15:33.045
what you should do.

15:34.305 --> 15:38.155
Precisely. It's a complex matter to create a really

15:38.795 --> 15:40.275
excellent university.

15:40.935 --> 15:42.595
But what's a simple matter?

15:43.295 --> 15:46.995
Uh, what's a simple prescription is that

15:47.815 --> 15:52.795
if you live in a society with a strong university system

15:53.505 --> 15:58.355
that is well funded as a university system by the society

15:58.695 --> 16:02.745
and has genuine independence, is not captured by the state,

16:03.125 --> 16:06.225
is not overly captured by big business, either

16:06.565 --> 16:09.265
by the military industrial complex, for example,

16:09.265 --> 16:12.985
which is a particular worry at this period of, of,

16:13.205 --> 16:16.545
of history, then you'll have good outcomes

16:17.125 --> 16:19.785
on solving a range of complex problems

16:20.215 --> 16:24.345
that are in focus in this book, as,

16:24.345 --> 16:27.945
simple solutions for complex catastrophes, climate change,

16:29.045 --> 16:32.785
war and crime prevention again,

16:34.105 --> 16:36.465
pandemic, prevention.

16:37.005 --> 16:41.625
Uh, and, and so some other big, financial catastrophes,

16:42.445 --> 16:43.945
big questions like those.

16:44.635 --> 16:48.665
There are some simple institutions like a rule of law

16:48.665 --> 16:51.745
that works like an independent university system

16:51.765 --> 16:54.225
that's genuinely, independent,

16:54.225 --> 16:55.305
that make a big difference.

16:55.565 --> 16:59.625
But we also need away from moving on from those

16:59.845 --> 17:01.425
simple solutions.

17:02.125 --> 17:04.785
We want those institutions to be generative.

17:05.245 --> 17:07.505
And that's a good thing about universities too,

17:07.815 --> 17:11.625
that they're always generating contestation of ideas

17:11.765 --> 17:12.905
and new way, and,

17:12.965 --> 17:16.145
and that's what you want in an institution that's going

17:16.145 --> 17:19.265
to be, adaptive to complexity.

17:20.105 --> 17:24.515
I do think, universities have become overly captured

17:24.815 --> 17:26.795
by corporate interests and,

17:27.015 --> 17:30.355
and by, by the national security state,

17:30.895 --> 17:32.155
as well.

17:32.295 --> 17:36.195
Not just the military corporations like the Lockheed

17:36.385 --> 17:39.955
Corporation manufacturing nuclear weapons and and so on.

17:40.015 --> 17:44.365
But it's true even of areas of scholarship

17:44.365 --> 17:45.805
that seem unexceptionable.

17:46.355 --> 17:48.445
Yeah, finding a solution to

17:49.185 --> 17:52.535
The, the covid, catastrophe.

17:52.995 --> 17:54.135
Uh, for example.

17:54.955 --> 17:59.615
Um, now unfortunately, what the data shows

18:00.715 --> 18:05.245
is that, research in universities that's funded

18:06.145 --> 18:11.005
by big pharma is four times as likely

18:11.745 --> 18:15.805
to find that the particular product is effective,

18:16.625 --> 18:18.965
and has minimal side effects

18:19.675 --> 18:22.645
than research on the same product funded

18:22.825 --> 18:25.365
by an institution like the National Institute

18:25.425 --> 18:27.125
as Institute of Health.

18:27.225 --> 18:30.365
Now in the United States, for example, where most

18:30.365 --> 18:33.685
of this, more of this research gets done than,

18:34.165 --> 18:37.325
anywhere else, the proportion of,

18:38.445 --> 18:43.125
research evaluating the efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs,

18:43.785 --> 18:45.405
the proportion funded

18:45.505 --> 18:47.805
by big pharma has more than doubled

18:48.225 --> 18:50.965
during my career in universities.

18:51.325 --> 18:55.045
I also obviously think that in the social sciences, we need

18:55.045 --> 18:57.965
to become more like the biological sciences in, in,

18:58.465 --> 19:00.965
in the way I mentioned earlier, becoming more,

19:01.345 --> 19:02.565
interdisciplinary.

19:03.145 --> 19:05.445
But universities, I continue

19:05.505 --> 19:08.445
to be passionate about universities.

19:08.475 --> 19:11.765
They are wonderful, institutions.

19:11.905 --> 19:15.245
We get cranky about our own universities all the time.

19:15.315 --> 19:19.285
They're important things that we fight about within,

19:19.465 --> 19:21.045
within the institutions.

19:21.145 --> 19:24.205
But, you know, with my peace building work, I go

19:24.305 --> 19:27.285
to societies that are caught up in wars.

19:28.105 --> 19:32.365
And when a society is in the midst of a war, that is

19:32.365 --> 19:37.125
where you really see how important a university is.

19:37.425 --> 19:40.685
The university is the place where ideas

19:41.425 --> 19:42.445
for a new piece,

19:43.185 --> 19:45.245
and you've gotta keep trying one piece agreement

19:45.295 --> 19:47.965
after another until you finally have one

19:47.965 --> 19:51.605
that succeeds on the ashes of many, that have failed.

19:51.705 --> 19:56.165
So it, it suits the ethos of the iterative ethos

19:56.225 --> 19:59.565
of science in university, the work of peace building,

19:59.665 --> 20:03.885
but also the activism for transformation in times

20:03.945 --> 20:05.045
of great oppression.

20:05.665 --> 20:08.725
So much in oppressed societies do come,

20:08.755 --> 20:11.845
from the undergraduate students of our university

20:12.145 --> 20:13.325
who are in conversation.

20:13.425 --> 20:16.805
And with me, we, silly old academics

20:16.805 --> 20:19.245
with our older ideas, they're the ones

20:19.785 --> 20:23.285
who really energize change on the streets

20:23.385 --> 20:26.925
and then grow up to become mature politicians that,

20:27.195 --> 20:30.525
that follow through on the changes that are needed

20:30.625 --> 20:34.885
to authoritarian societies, in, in particular.

20:35.505 --> 20:37.645
So that in the end, I'm,

20:37.745 --> 20:41.045
I'm very upbeat about the future of universities.

20:41.075 --> 20:45.085
They keep going through, bad periods, for example,

20:45.085 --> 20:46.485
during wars,

20:46.545 --> 20:50.685
but they can emerge the other side strengthened by the,

20:50.945 --> 20:53.885
by the travail of a time of conflict

20:54.435 --> 20:57.645
because of the energy of the new generation of students

20:58.075 --> 21:00.645
with their new and better ideas than we had.

21:01.025 --> 21:03.285
We really need that with climate change, of course,

21:03.905 --> 21:07.525
or mostly we fail in scholarly ri life.

21:08.265 --> 21:13.245
You know, most articles, I'm, you know, a a more successful

21:13.245 --> 21:14.965
and average academic perhaps.

21:15.705 --> 21:19.165
Um, but most of my articles fail.

21:19.865 --> 21:22.045
Uh, very few people read them,

21:22.555 --> 21:25.045
very few people cite them.

21:25.565 --> 21:28.565
I have one that a lot of people read and,

21:28.665 --> 21:30.845
and cite very often.

21:31.145 --> 21:33.605
That's because of the quality of my co-authors

21:34.185 --> 21:36.445
or things I've learned from my own students.

21:37.185 --> 21:40.445
So I've found a new way of thinking about that

21:40.445 --> 21:44.645
through thinking, through listening to the wisdom

21:44.745 --> 21:46.085
of the younger generation.

21:47.385 --> 21:52.005
So, you lead the contented scholarly life

21:52.225 --> 21:56.525
by thinking that it's not mainly about my individual,

21:57.345 --> 21:59.165
successes and failures.

21:59.195 --> 22:01.685
It's about being a contributor

22:02.385 --> 22:05.605
to making the institution more effective in the

22:05.605 --> 22:06.685
long run of history.

22:07.105 --> 22:11.285
An institution, the university is an institution,

22:11.475 --> 22:13.645
that is very effective.

22:14.265 --> 22:17.325
Uh, what we hope for is that,

22:17.385 --> 22:19.645
and this is certainly true in my case,

22:20.115 --> 22:24.965
that my students add a lot more value than I do personally.

22:24.975 --> 22:26.525
There are a lot more of them, of course,

22:26.905 --> 22:30.485
but a lot of them are doing much more exciting things than

22:30.625 --> 22:32.565
I'm doing, these days.

22:32.865 --> 22:36.325
And so we contribute collectively,

22:36.625 --> 22:41.405
and if we're lucky in University of life, we bump into some,

22:41.825 --> 22:45.365
very interesting people like Valerie Braithwaite in my

22:45.365 --> 22:48.005
case, as I was mentioning earlier, who just make

22:48.435 --> 22:51.645
what we do together a lot better than

22:51.755 --> 22:54.205
what we might have done, individually.

22:54.665 --> 22:58.445
So the contented scholarly life is about being patient

22:59.265 --> 23:02.525
for those great collaborations, those great moments

23:02.705 --> 23:07.045
of learning from the wisdom of others to,

23:07.095 --> 23:10.365
smack us in the face and change us in hopefully good ways.

23:10.365 --> 23:11.085
Every now and then.

00:00 - Graduate students often say to me, what's a really hot, hot topic that I can focus on with my, with my work? And I say, well, you know, to ask an old guy like me, a question like that is maybe not the, not the right question, because the answer you might get is, you know, you might end up fighting yesterday's war,

00:22 - and there's a danger if you think what to do yourself there, you'll, you'll end up fighting tomorrow's war rather, rather than today's war. But that's not as big a mistake in the long term if you are backing the wrong horse in the short term, that's all right. If your thinking is sound in the long run, there will be people who will come to your project and see the value that you see in it, you know, failure's. Okay? Especially if you have that long run view.

00:52 - And it's not as if I stayed with the same long run race. I mean, I didn't make radical shifts in the short term, but in the long run, I made big shifts by gradually changing my focus and, and adjusting. And I think that, that, that, well, it worked for, for me. I, I, I did try to reform a lot of institutions, including universities. I mean, universities are very hard institutions to reform because they're, they're pretty balkanized institutions

01:28 - where you have these, these kings and queens that, sit on top of, disciplinary, empires, and they defend them. If, and if you are a change agent who says that, you know, we, we should be thinking about a more interdisciplinary project. And I mean, I, I have a pretty radical view about the problems with the current structure of the social sciences. I think it's a pretty dumb idea to have a bunch of people who study an institution called the economy

01:56 - and call themselves economists and another group who study political institution, call 'em political sciences, lawyers, do legal institute, cri we criminologists, do criminal justice institutions like the police and the prison. I think that's a really dumb way of organizing, the advancement of knowledge. And I think we could learn a lot from the big shifts that have occurred in the biological sciences, for example.

02:22 - It's enabled them to be rather better at breakthroughs than we have been in the social sciences. You know, trying too hard, hard to bang your head against those disciplinary barriers is, is not a good as, as good a path as just doing your own thing, showing, trying to show that what you do is valuable. And again, that long run race of bringing people to see the value in your project because you do something well and hopefully do something a bit better

02:55 - because it is interdisciplinary. Well, in the, in the days when I was young, the consumer movement was a big thing. You know, Ralph Nader was a friend of, of, of mine. And, and we were, we were change agents on things like consumer product safety, making cars safer, and getting seat belts made mandated in motor vehicles and, and so on. That was what I was doing when I was young.

03:19 - not being a, an an an academic, but being, being an advocate. And in that role, I, I issued a press release, saying that recent appointments to our National Competition Authority and Consumer Protection Authority, the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, as it's called, today, was putting the foxes in charge of the chickens coop. That was how, how my press release was, was, was headed. And, and indeed it was, it, it, there was some of that,

03:51 - in it that, there, there, there was one person who was from the company. It was the CEO of the company who had the worst compliance record, the worst criminal prosecution conviction record of, any Australian, company. And I was a bit embarrassed a few years later when the, when the government, a new government responded, to that critique by pointing me to the commission. And then I found that some of those people,

04:22 - about whom I was saying that was the, the foxes in charge of the chicken coop were actually a lot more competent at the job of being commissioners of the a accc by virtue of their business background, than I was, they were very kind to me. And we had many jokes, about, about my history in getting in into that position. But it was a rewarding institution to engage with because it was a conversational institution where we could talk to each other about our differences,

04:57 - those who came from a business background, those who came from an academic background. And by then, I'd morphed from being, an activist to being an academic, other kinds of background, again, practicing lawyers. one of the people who was appointed at that time really was so much better at the job that ended up, other people thought that, not just me, 'cause he ended up becoming Chief Justice of Australia. But with an institution like that, I mean, again,

05:24 - your role is a small one. You are a contributor. You engage in a conversational way with the institution. And if you engage in good faith in a genuine way, and with some good ideas, which are sometimes right, sometimes are wrong, other people who are better at the craft of institutional change than you are end up joining your cause. And together, you can at times, bring about some big changes.

05:59 - And there, there were some, in those days with the Competition Commission, the chairman of the commission at the time that I put out my famous press release, was also, from a business background. he, and he came, from the largest tobacco manufacturer in Australia. I was critical of his appointment, but I learned that he was a very capable lawyer and was bringing some lawyerly excellence to the work

06:32 - of the commission that wasn't there before. But he also, brought some baggage from his background in the industry. And very early on, there was a case where the Australian Tobacco Institute, Institute representing the tobacco industry, put out an advertisement in all of the big newspapers, women's magazines, everywhere in Australia at the time of passive smoking becoming an issue. And this advertisement said that passive smoking

07:04 - is not a health risk. If you are just getting indirect smoke from other people, it's not gonna adversely affect your health. We had a complaint from the NGO sector, including from my own old NGO, that said, this advertisement was in breach of what was then called the Trade Practices, act because it was a false claim pass. The evidence now by now is clear, this is in the 1980s, that, sm a passive inhalation

07:36 - of cigarette smoking is very dangerous for yal, especially for children. And, what he did, the chair of the commission, having come from the tobacco industry, literally in a smoke, smoke-filled room, negotiated a remedial advertisement. So the Tobacco Institute put out a new advertisement saying, we want to correct somewhat what we said in our former ad. This resulted in a court case. it also resulted in me, going

08:08 - to the commission, the going to the chairman and saying that was inappropriate. I in particular, should have been in that smoke filled room where you did that deal, with the old industry. And I agree with this new complaint that's come in that says, the new ad is also in breach of our act, in breach of the act that you have a responsibility. Any rate. The, on appeal federal court and Australia found exactly the same thing. And it was a very influential case.

08:39 - It changed behavior in the United States, in Europe because it was the first time that a court, an appellate court, had made a formal decision that, yes, we find that the factual situation is that tobacco, passive smoking is dangerous for your health. And that mean meant that all of the organizations that we work in realize that that could be used for lawsuits against them. That judicial authority would be followed by the judiciaries of other countries,

09:10 - especially in the English speaking world. So, in no time, even in, American baseball grounds, everyone was amazed that a high degree of compliance was achieved. And even in an open air stadium, people in no time as a result of that court decision, were being prevented from smoking, in the, in the stadium, there was a lot of opposition, but people complied. Even, even those American baseball fans, complied.

09:42 - So that was a big, that was a big change. That was a result of robust engagement. And it wasn't so much my personal contribution as again, again, sure I started the, the contest over it, but it was other people that made the real difference, that drove that throughout the world system as a big change in how we live our lives in regard to smoking cigarettes. Valerie Brafa and I, we came from different, disciplines.

10:13 - it was a long-term relationship. I I met her at kindergarten when we were five years of age, and we, we had some conflicts at that time, but we gradually got to know each other and married at quite a, quite a young age. So we've been married for much more than half a century, by now. and while we were very different kinds of intellectuals from different disciplines, we shared this interest in interdisciplinarity,

10:45 - and we talked to each other in our relationship, and I learned so much from Val and acquired good things. I think about, her style, which took off some of my rough edges. And, in, in particular. So you, you know, you learn in life conversationally, from colleagues and especially from ones that you are, you are, close to. So it's, it's not just relevant to an academic couple, it's relevant to all of us.

11:11 - You, you know, you trust your friends so much that they will talk to you bluntly about what are your weaknesses, how you could do better, what are your strengths? This is your strengths. You should do more of this kind of stuff. and, that, that's certainly the way it worked with, with Val and I, and we ended up doing a lot of things together when we were young.

11:32 - We used to fight a lot. You know, when you, like, when you come home from work, you like to complain about your colleagues at work to your partner, but when the co-author you want to complain about is in fact your partner, that's a bit difficult. So we had to adjust to that, and we gave up with collaborating with each other for a little while. And then when we were more mature

11:53 - In our relationship, we came back again, to working together. So it went, that went on and off. The relationship didn't go on and off, but that went on and off. during that half a century, macro Criminology and Freedom Book was a book that brought together my life's work as, as it were. most people find it far too long a, a book, but it's available open access.

12:18 - So you just look up John Braithwaite macro criminology and, and freedom, and, you can jump in and read those bits, that are of interest to you by, by searching on the search function. But when you do try to bring, a life's work together in a more integrated way, it integrates it in a different way than most people integrate lots of little different bits of knowledge with a big macro theory about how you change the nature of society to become a society in which there's less

12:54 - crime and less war. War is important. And there's the idea of cascades of crime and war in importance. So crime is seen as a cascade phenomenon. So in the United States, they have a real problem with mass shootings. And one big reason that they have such a big problem with mass shootings compared with other societies, is that they've had so many other mass shootings in the recent past.

13:21 - So crime cascades to more crime, unfortunately. So each extra incident that occurs, it becomes, a lot more difficult, to shut it down, even if you succeed in shooting down wrong metaphor. the initial causes, such as inadequate gun, gun control. So also crime tends to cascade to war and war to crime, as we see at the moment, with a lot of hate crime associated with the conflict in Gaza at the moment,

13:56 - but in many different ways, war cascades to crime, and also regrettably war cascades to more wars. So if you live in a neighborhood where some of your neighbors are getting themselves into wars, unfortunately your country will be more likely, to end up in more wars. And that's something that's exercising the minds of diplomats in Europe at the moment, for good reasons. of course. So it's about those big macro questions that, in the end come down to very, private matters

14:33 - and how to make the public private. It seeks to get there by integrating an explanatory theory of crime with a normative theory of crime. So an explanatory theory is an ordered set of propositions about the way the world is, and a normative theory is an ordered set of Propositions about the way the world ought to be. So I try to find propositions that come from explanatory theory, that advance normative theory, that are a fit

15:03 - to both kinds of theory. And the book argues that, that improve both kinds of theory. That's been a long-term joint project of mine with the great philosopher, Philip Petit. And then the book that's coming out soon is called, simple Problems to Complex Catastrophe. And it's about the ideas. Take, take the example of reforming, universities. I was saying earlier, it is very hard to know what you should do.

15:34 - Precisely. It's a complex matter to create a really excellent university. But what's a simple matter? what's a simple prescription is that if you live in a society with a strong university system that is well funded as a university system by the society and has genuine independence, is not captured by the state, is not overly captured by big business, either by the military industrial complex, for example, which is a particular worry at this period of, of,

16:13 - of history, then you'll have good outcomes on solving a range of complex problems that are in focus in this book, as, simple solutions for complex catastrophes, climate change, war and crime prevention again, pandemic, prevention. and, and so some other big, financial catastrophes, big questions like those. There are some simple institutions like a rule of law that works like an independent university system

16:51 - that's genuinely, independent, that make a big difference. But we also need away from moving on from those simple solutions. We want those institutions to be generative. And that's a good thing about universities too, that they're always generating contestation of ideas and new way, and, and that's what you want in an institution that's going to be, adaptive to complexity.

17:20 - I do think, universities have become overly captured by corporate interests and, and by, by the national security state, as well. Not just the military corporations like the Lockheed Corporation manufacturing nuclear weapons and and so on. But it's true even of areas of scholarship that seem unexceptionable. Yeah, finding a solution to The, the covid, catastrophe.

17:52 - for example. now unfortunately, what the data shows is that, research in universities that's funded by big pharma is four times as likely to find that the particular product is effective, and has minimal side effects than research on the same product funded by an institution like the National Institute as Institute of Health. Now in the United States, for example, where most

18:30 - of this, more of this research gets done than, anywhere else, the proportion of, research evaluating the efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs, the proportion funded by big pharma has more than doubled during my career in universities. I also obviously think that in the social sciences, we need to become more like the biological sciences in, in, in the way I mentioned earlier, becoming more, interdisciplinary.

19:03 - But universities, I continue to be passionate about universities. They are wonderful, institutions. We get cranky about our own universities all the time. They're important things that we fight about within, within the institutions. But, you know, with my peace building work, I go to societies that are caught up in wars. And when a society is in the midst of a war, that is where you really see how important a university is.

19:37 - The university is the place where ideas for a new piece, and you've gotta keep trying one piece agreement after another until you finally have one that succeeds on the ashes of many, that have failed. So it, it suits the ethos of the iterative ethos of science in university, the work of peace building, but also the activism for transformation in times of great oppression. So much in oppressed societies do come,

20:08 - from the undergraduate students of our university who are in conversation. And with me, we, silly old academics with our older ideas, they're the ones who really energize change on the streets and then grow up to become mature politicians that, that follow through on the changes that are needed to authoritarian societies, in, in particular. So that in the end, I'm, I'm very upbeat about the future of universities.

20:41 - They keep going through, bad periods, for example, during wars, but they can emerge the other side strengthened by the, by the travail of a time of conflict because of the energy of the new generation of students with their new and better ideas than we had. We really need that with climate change, of course, or mostly we fail in scholarly ri life. You know, most articles, I'm, you know, a a more successful and average academic perhaps.

21:15 - but most of my articles fail. very few people read them, very few people cite them. I have one that a lot of people read and, and cite very often. That's because of the quality of my co-authors or things I've learned from my own students. So I've found a new way of thinking about that through thinking, through listening to the wisdom of the younger generation.

21:47 - So, you lead the contented scholarly life by thinking that it's not mainly about my individual, successes and failures. It's about being a contributor to making the institution more effective in the long run of history. An institution, the university is an institution, that is very effective. what we hope for is that, and this is certainly true in my case,

22:20 - that my students add a lot more value than I do personally. There are a lot more of them, of course, but a lot of them are doing much more exciting things than I'm doing, these days. And so we contribute collectively, and if we're lucky in University of life, we bump into some, very interesting people like Valerie Braithwaite in my case, as I was mentioning earlier, who just make what we do together a lot better than what we might have done, individually.

22:54 - So the contented scholarly life is about being patient for those great collaborations, those great moments of learning from the wisdom of others to, smack us in the face and change us in hopefully good ways. Every now and then.

Faculti AI can make mistakes