I identified one final ideological-institutional cluster - or, more aptly, micro-cluster. A little further to the left of the Progressive cluster I noticed a very small network of several think tanks (e.g. Institute for Policy Studies and Center for Economic & Policy Research) that I called the Reformist Left. Associated with these institutions are a handful of figures such as Noam Chomsky (academic), Joseph Stiglitz (economist - formerly with World Bank and Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers), Barbara Ehrenreich (journalist), and Mark Weistbrot (economist). As far as I am aware, there is no significant corporate funding or affiliations with politicians, and it is primarily an intellectual domain.
The Reformist Left is more critical of The Establishment than the Progressive cluster, yet not exactly revolutionary either. It is certainly more sweeping and trenchant in its critique of globalization and U.S. foreign relations than the Progressive cluster. It is also incisive, like the Progressive cluster, in its criticism of structural inequalities. The economic position of the Reformist Left is also similar to that of the Progressive Cluster - Keynesianism, though possibly even stronger in its support for unions and public programs.
I chose the word "reformist" to place this ideological position in the context of the longstanding divide between the reformist and revolutionary left. The reformists are often derided by the revolutionary left, especially in Europe where their institutionalization in the form of Social Democrat parties seen as a sell out. Strict revolutionaries, for their part, are criticized as being incapable of enacting any social change. The revolutionary left, I should note, comprises a number of different ideologies, groups, and agendas.
Nothing left of progressivism has ever had much political clout in the United States, although presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (who, it should be noted, is running as a democrat) has apparently been fundraising quite well. From what I can tell, once working class whites in the U.S. overwhelmingly shifted to Liberal-Centrist, Religious Right, and Radical Right positions, the Reformist and revolutionary left remained as the domain of academics, with some non-academic activists of color included. That is not to say that all of academia is leftist, of course; just that a large proportion of leftists in the United States tend to have some connection or other to academia (even just as drop-outs). Therefore, I would place both the Reformist Left and revolutionary left (all its varieties) squarely outside of The Establishment, while noting that the Reformist Left is a little less adversarial to The Establishment.
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Friday, May 8, 2015
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Material Structure of Ideology and Politics
Due to things going on in my life I haven't posted in a really long time. I almost don't feel like I know how to do it anymore!
Also, for some reason, I haven't really felt like I've had much to say. That might mean that I am surrounding myself with too many people/viewpoints that correspond to my own. Maybe I'm even getting lazy because other people can formulate my thoughts for me.
One extraneous thing that I HAVE done is independent/amateur research on think tanks. I've been interested in seeing how the networks of different ideologies and political strategies are institutionally manifested. This is part of my long-term goal of more thoroughly dissecting the structure of power in the modern world. (Parasitically, of course. I will almost always have to rely on the work of others)
My starting point for this little project of mine was come up with a list of U.S. think tanks and then look at:
1) Individual and corporate backing
2) Membership and affilliations
3) Associated media
4) Connections to activist organizations
As I started to putting this information together, I saw that the think tanks on my list clustered into a number of groups sharing some characteristics.
My plan is to describe each group in successive posts.
Stay tuned.
Also, for some reason, I haven't really felt like I've had much to say. That might mean that I am surrounding myself with too many people/viewpoints that correspond to my own. Maybe I'm even getting lazy because other people can formulate my thoughts for me.
One extraneous thing that I HAVE done is independent/amateur research on think tanks. I've been interested in seeing how the networks of different ideologies and political strategies are institutionally manifested. This is part of my long-term goal of more thoroughly dissecting the structure of power in the modern world. (Parasitically, of course. I will almost always have to rely on the work of others)
My starting point for this little project of mine was come up with a list of U.S. think tanks and then look at:
1) Individual and corporate backing
2) Membership and affilliations
3) Associated media
4) Connections to activist organizations
As I started to putting this information together, I saw that the think tanks on my list clustered into a number of groups sharing some characteristics.
My plan is to describe each group in successive posts.
Stay tuned.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Inertia of the Status Quo
It is often difficult to explain the existence of complex institutional structures, constituted by the collected (not collective) action of “average” people with varying beliefs and goals, when one rules out the implausible case of a small group of elites secretly controlling everything. When one gets to the heart of any organization or industry, one can always find relations of exploitation that support an overarching structure of domination. If this overarching structure is not being coordinated from above, how can it possibly exist?
The cornerstone of effective social analysis, particularly if one truly follows along historical materialist lines, is the understanding that people employ already-existing realities – relationships, ideologies, material structures – to achieve their goals. We are always constrained in the present by the arrangements that have emerged through prior human activity. Thus, current social realities can always be explained to some extent by historical accident. The key is in understanding how historical accident articulates with particular interests and strategies of domination. Several different types of articulation seem plausible – the last one being the most insidious:
Opportunism
Occasionally, authentically new social-material networks are created (with existing material and social resources) in an effort to address certain problems. Say, for example, members of a community want to keep their youth out of trouble and notice that children do not get any kind of after-school support or supervision. So they pull together some resources and start an after-school youth program, operating out of a local library (already-existing resource). The people who are involved may have varying degrees of self-interest (in our example, a woman agrees to direct the program on a volunteer basis because it looks great on her resume), but are all ultimately supporting the original goal. Eventually, someone spots an opportunity for profit, or a business discovers a way to use the network to shift burdens onto the community or to create a new market or to otherwise serve its own interests. Someone comes along and tells the youth program organizers that they know how to raise a lot of money to get them their own building and supplies. Now businesses are donating items with their company logo strategically displayed. All the youth programs needs to do in return is promote messages about personal responsibility and the merits of competition. Then the businesses, who are looking for some way to reduce their tax burderns, realize that, even if all the money they contribute is not spent, they still receive tax exemptions for their donations; so they quietly place their friends in leadership positions and ensure that only a small percentage of their generous contributions are actually spent on anything. Finally, other people realize that the program can be replicated in other locations, and politicians decide to reduce funding for schools on the premise that some of the resources previously provided by the school system can now be provisioned through these private youth programs (and it’s a win for these politicians who are trying to capitalize on the anti-public school sentiments of their base).
Eventually, the after-school youth program becomes an enduring social institution that occupies its own niche, but nevertheless serves other political and economic purposes. The idea was not formulated in some smokey room by a secret ruling class cabal, yet in the end, powerful interests found a way to use it to their own advantage.
Ideological Conformity
Many people’s social awareness is so clouded by hegemonic assumptions that they may inadvertently draw upon and enhance existing power relationships as a direct consequence of the ideologies that they employ. For example, going back to the youth center: say that they haven’t yet sought corporate sponsorship, and they are trying to delineate an educational vision for their program. It may be in the best interest of the youth to receive political/historical education that will allow them to challenge structures of inequality that oppress them. Yet, the directors of the program have bought into the idea that people can raise themselves out of poverty if they just work hard enough. They might decide, totally on their own, without any outside pressure, to use their program to instill values of self-discipline, goal-setting, and financial responsibility. This program now reinforces one of the most powerful ideologies that justifies an inequitable social order – but not through any manipulation by corporate or political elites, simply through the work of ordinary people.
The discourses and ideologies that, through the speed and extent of their circulation, are always close at hand, are the very the very ones that get taken up and reproduced most easily - thus intensifying their circulation (vicious cycle).
Inertia
This, perhaps, may be one of the most powerful, yet frequently overlooked, forces that creates stability in an unjust system. People may have good intentions, but they do not want to think critically about how their own lifestyles and self interests contribute to the global and domestic suffering of which they are dimly aware. People who have built careers in particular industries – like health care or retirement, for example – like to take pride in the benefits they are providing to vulnerable populations, and so they view their role in society, and the inner mechanics of their industries, in simplistic terms (e.g. “I’m helping sick people get healthy again” or “I’m helping middle class America save for retirement”). Furthermore, because their careers sustain them both financially and socially (status), any potential changes to the institutional environment that might, possibly, threaten their careers are resisted. So they band together in industry associations to lobby and oppose regulations that seek to reform their industries. They will not acknowledge the reality that they are really exploiting already vulnerable people, and participating in the profiteering of hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical executives (health care) or the financial services industry (retirement).
Lifestyle is just as important as career. The middle and upper classes of industrialized societies have so thoroughly absorbed the Ideology of Progress (which assures them that material comforts are a natural outcomes of human progress, not products of exploitative relationships) and so enjoy their luxuries (which they cannot even see as luxuries) that they are utterly resistant to lifestyle changes. At most, they may shop at Whole Foods (corporation) or buy energy-efficient light bulbs – maybe even a hybrid vehicle. The few people who go so far as to grow their own food, forego the latest technology, or live somewhat “off the grid” are perceived as crazy fringe radicals (the type of people who might have Marxist blogs...?). Yet, it is these lifestyles that sustain the global capitalist system – the market is crucial. An equitable social order would preclude any such extravagance. As long as the relatively well-off are unwilling to change their consumption patterns, social change will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
In sum, then, it is obvious that powerful economic and political interests are able to co-opt existing structures and exacerbate inequality. Yet ordinary people also contribute in a very powerful way: through their inability to challenge hegemonic ideas, jeopardize their careers, or change their lifestyles.
The cornerstone of effective social analysis, particularly if one truly follows along historical materialist lines, is the understanding that people employ already-existing realities – relationships, ideologies, material structures – to achieve their goals. We are always constrained in the present by the arrangements that have emerged through prior human activity. Thus, current social realities can always be explained to some extent by historical accident. The key is in understanding how historical accident articulates with particular interests and strategies of domination. Several different types of articulation seem plausible – the last one being the most insidious:
Opportunism
Occasionally, authentically new social-material networks are created (with existing material and social resources) in an effort to address certain problems. Say, for example, members of a community want to keep their youth out of trouble and notice that children do not get any kind of after-school support or supervision. So they pull together some resources and start an after-school youth program, operating out of a local library (already-existing resource). The people who are involved may have varying degrees of self-interest (in our example, a woman agrees to direct the program on a volunteer basis because it looks great on her resume), but are all ultimately supporting the original goal. Eventually, someone spots an opportunity for profit, or a business discovers a way to use the network to shift burdens onto the community or to create a new market or to otherwise serve its own interests. Someone comes along and tells the youth program organizers that they know how to raise a lot of money to get them their own building and supplies. Now businesses are donating items with their company logo strategically displayed. All the youth programs needs to do in return is promote messages about personal responsibility and the merits of competition. Then the businesses, who are looking for some way to reduce their tax burderns, realize that, even if all the money they contribute is not spent, they still receive tax exemptions for their donations; so they quietly place their friends in leadership positions and ensure that only a small percentage of their generous contributions are actually spent on anything. Finally, other people realize that the program can be replicated in other locations, and politicians decide to reduce funding for schools on the premise that some of the resources previously provided by the school system can now be provisioned through these private youth programs (and it’s a win for these politicians who are trying to capitalize on the anti-public school sentiments of their base).
Eventually, the after-school youth program becomes an enduring social institution that occupies its own niche, but nevertheless serves other political and economic purposes. The idea was not formulated in some smokey room by a secret ruling class cabal, yet in the end, powerful interests found a way to use it to their own advantage.
Ideological Conformity
Many people’s social awareness is so clouded by hegemonic assumptions that they may inadvertently draw upon and enhance existing power relationships as a direct consequence of the ideologies that they employ. For example, going back to the youth center: say that they haven’t yet sought corporate sponsorship, and they are trying to delineate an educational vision for their program. It may be in the best interest of the youth to receive political/historical education that will allow them to challenge structures of inequality that oppress them. Yet, the directors of the program have bought into the idea that people can raise themselves out of poverty if they just work hard enough. They might decide, totally on their own, without any outside pressure, to use their program to instill values of self-discipline, goal-setting, and financial responsibility. This program now reinforces one of the most powerful ideologies that justifies an inequitable social order – but not through any manipulation by corporate or political elites, simply through the work of ordinary people.
The discourses and ideologies that, through the speed and extent of their circulation, are always close at hand, are the very the very ones that get taken up and reproduced most easily - thus intensifying their circulation (vicious cycle).
Inertia
This, perhaps, may be one of the most powerful, yet frequently overlooked, forces that creates stability in an unjust system. People may have good intentions, but they do not want to think critically about how their own lifestyles and self interests contribute to the global and domestic suffering of which they are dimly aware. People who have built careers in particular industries – like health care or retirement, for example – like to take pride in the benefits they are providing to vulnerable populations, and so they view their role in society, and the inner mechanics of their industries, in simplistic terms (e.g. “I’m helping sick people get healthy again” or “I’m helping middle class America save for retirement”). Furthermore, because their careers sustain them both financially and socially (status), any potential changes to the institutional environment that might, possibly, threaten their careers are resisted. So they band together in industry associations to lobby and oppose regulations that seek to reform their industries. They will not acknowledge the reality that they are really exploiting already vulnerable people, and participating in the profiteering of hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical executives (health care) or the financial services industry (retirement).
Lifestyle is just as important as career. The middle and upper classes of industrialized societies have so thoroughly absorbed the Ideology of Progress (which assures them that material comforts are a natural outcomes of human progress, not products of exploitative relationships) and so enjoy their luxuries (which they cannot even see as luxuries) that they are utterly resistant to lifestyle changes. At most, they may shop at Whole Foods (corporation) or buy energy-efficient light bulbs – maybe even a hybrid vehicle. The few people who go so far as to grow their own food, forego the latest technology, or live somewhat “off the grid” are perceived as crazy fringe radicals (the type of people who might have Marxist blogs...?). Yet, it is these lifestyles that sustain the global capitalist system – the market is crucial. An equitable social order would preclude any such extravagance. As long as the relatively well-off are unwilling to change their consumption patterns, social change will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
In sum, then, it is obvious that powerful economic and political interests are able to co-opt existing structures and exacerbate inequality. Yet ordinary people also contribute in a very powerful way: through their inability to challenge hegemonic ideas, jeopardize their careers, or change their lifestyles.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Neoliberal Falsehoods
I enjoy reading media from other parts of the world, if only because it generally presents a wider variety of perspectives than my own regional alternatives. I wish it were easier in the West for people not drinking the neoliberal kool-aid to reach a general audience. But I will just have to satisfy myself with the fact that people like this Namibian can.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Book Review: Fordlandia
...The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City
This account of Henry Ford’s ill-fated Amazonian rubber plantation also provides some history of the rubber and auto industries as well as the life and work of Henry Ford himself. I enjoyed it, mainly because I thought it was well-written and just plain interesting. Sometimes it’s nice to have a break from philosophical gymnastics and pedantic intellectualism, to just enjoy a story.
Yet the story was not without a point. The author, Greg Grandin, clearly emphasized the impossibility of controlling the negative effects of capitalism and the naivety of technocratic idealism. Henry Ford served as a symbol of the Ideology of Progress, the hope that science and technology can perfect society.
In fact, from a philosophical standpoint, what I found most interesting about the book was the way it illustrated the relationship between capitalism and government (the impulse to rationally control society). Henry Ford embodied these two forces better than anyone else. As such, he serves as a good entry point for an examination of the ways in which these phenomena both mutually reinforce and undercut each other, how they can spring from disparate ideals yet still be manipulated by the same dominant groups.
Common ways of construing the relationship between capitalism and government are simplistic. The two are seen only as opposing forces. Government interferes with capitalism; such interference may be viewed as beneficial, to the extent that one acknowledges any shortcomings of capitalism. To this end, capitalism and government are seen as the province of independent entities, the latter generally of the state.
I have already argued that government originates and extends beyond the state, in contrast to the view that the two are synonymous. On the other hand, it is also overly reductive to assume that capitalism and government work seamlessly together, managed by an elite conspiratorial cabal. A capitalist may be interested in social engineering, but may also come into conflict with the state, transnational organizations, nonprofits, community groups, and other capitalists, any of which may also be interested in the same governmental projects.
Henry Ford was motivated by profit. No doubt. Yet he was also an idealist, who sometimes let his drive for profit take a backseat to his quest for a better society. Unlike the stereotypical capitalist, Ford was interested in conservation, cared about the lifestyle and wellbeing of his employees, and vehemently opposed war. He expended a considerable amount of money developing a "sociology department" (which kept tabs on the habits of his employees) as well as providing quality healthcare, and in some cases (for example, Fordlandia) housing and meals. Ford bought into the promises of the Ideology of Progress - that technology could liberate humans from hard labor and dependence on the whims of nature; that capitalism could effectively regulate the distribution of resources and labor; that wage labor could build moral character and generate prosperity; that modernization could have a "civilizing" effect around the globe. Thus, Henry Ford was compelled to act in certain ways purely due to his belief that people should be healthy, productive, and morally upright. He was interested in people in their own right, and not just as forms of capital.
Yet he also opposed projects of other organizations that were motivated by the same concerns. He fought against state intervention (even when it mimicked his own projects) and despised FDR's New Deal programs. He pioneered the Five Dollar Day (a high wage at the time) and provisioned health care, but he was ruthless in his treatment of unions.
There is, I think, a better way of understanding the complex relationship between capitalism and government. It is true that individual capitalists (and others in positions of dominance) are able to wield disproportionate control over the distrinbution of resources, organization of production, and other aspects of social reality, even if they are only able to do so by virtue of the existing social structure, based as it is on inequality. However, one must not assume that they are all working together, or that there is some master plan. Of course everyone looks after their own self-interest. This necessarily leads capitalists into conflict with each other, because every individual succeeds at the expense of many of the others.
Yet, there are some general conditions which are necessary for the capitalist system to function, and this forms a base of shared interests. The state is one important arena in which shared interests are negotiated and protected. Even here, though, there is not total coordination among the members of the supposed capitalist "class." Many cannot connect all the dots and are unaware of the necessity of these general conditions - possibly because their understanding is distorted by ideology - while some are so concerned with short-term personal gain that the long-term prospects of the system itself are of no consequence to them. It is this fact, more than any other, that accounts for "politics" (as opposed to, say, the harmonious coordination and brainwash-based consent of the world of 1984).
But I must take better account of ideology in this scenario. It is true that ideology derives from and often works to support the system (and in that way furthers capitalist aims). It is also true that it may be strategically employed in a disingenous way. Yet it is not just a "lie" used to brainwash the masses (once again, a la 1984). Ideology fundamentally shapes the consciousness of many, many people from all levels of the social hierarchy. As such, when ideology is embraced by capitalists, it may hinder an awareness of what is really necessary for the system to function, and it may even cause a capitalist to knowingly act contrary to the profit motive. Henry Ford demonstrates both of these cases. For example, he did not realize that his refusal to cooperate with unions would result in dramatically increased worker unrest. It was not until a series of violent episodes and the success of a sit-down strike that he realized the necessity of cooperation as a general condition. And Fordlandia is the ultimate example of ideology before profit. Fordlandia was a drain on Ford's resources, and yet he continued to invest in the operation, with the rationale that it was a "civilizing mission."
Ideology, like profit, represents both shared and conflicting interests among the capitalist class. Most accept the set of ideologies associated with modernity (as these represent a dominant mode of thought overall). At the same time, some may emphasize different aspects over others, or hold different opinions regarding how best to achieve these ideals.
It may be said, given all of the above discussion, that the "forces of dominance" in our world are less individual people, and more the complete assemblage of social artifacts (social structure, physical infrastructure, ideas, discourses, modes of communication etc.) that has accrued throughout the entire human history of production and interaction. We are really, in a sense, slaves to our own creations - and the "our" here includes our ancestors.
This account of Henry Ford’s ill-fated Amazonian rubber plantation also provides some history of the rubber and auto industries as well as the life and work of Henry Ford himself. I enjoyed it, mainly because I thought it was well-written and just plain interesting. Sometimes it’s nice to have a break from philosophical gymnastics and pedantic intellectualism, to just enjoy a story.
Yet the story was not without a point. The author, Greg Grandin, clearly emphasized the impossibility of controlling the negative effects of capitalism and the naivety of technocratic idealism. Henry Ford served as a symbol of the Ideology of Progress, the hope that science and technology can perfect society.
In fact, from a philosophical standpoint, what I found most interesting about the book was the way it illustrated the relationship between capitalism and government (the impulse to rationally control society). Henry Ford embodied these two forces better than anyone else. As such, he serves as a good entry point for an examination of the ways in which these phenomena both mutually reinforce and undercut each other, how they can spring from disparate ideals yet still be manipulated by the same dominant groups.
Common ways of construing the relationship between capitalism and government are simplistic. The two are seen only as opposing forces. Government interferes with capitalism; such interference may be viewed as beneficial, to the extent that one acknowledges any shortcomings of capitalism. To this end, capitalism and government are seen as the province of independent entities, the latter generally of the state.
I have already argued that government originates and extends beyond the state, in contrast to the view that the two are synonymous. On the other hand, it is also overly reductive to assume that capitalism and government work seamlessly together, managed by an elite conspiratorial cabal. A capitalist may be interested in social engineering, but may also come into conflict with the state, transnational organizations, nonprofits, community groups, and other capitalists, any of which may also be interested in the same governmental projects.
Henry Ford was motivated by profit. No doubt. Yet he was also an idealist, who sometimes let his drive for profit take a backseat to his quest for a better society. Unlike the stereotypical capitalist, Ford was interested in conservation, cared about the lifestyle and wellbeing of his employees, and vehemently opposed war. He expended a considerable amount of money developing a "sociology department" (which kept tabs on the habits of his employees) as well as providing quality healthcare, and in some cases (for example, Fordlandia) housing and meals. Ford bought into the promises of the Ideology of Progress - that technology could liberate humans from hard labor and dependence on the whims of nature; that capitalism could effectively regulate the distribution of resources and labor; that wage labor could build moral character and generate prosperity; that modernization could have a "civilizing" effect around the globe. Thus, Henry Ford was compelled to act in certain ways purely due to his belief that people should be healthy, productive, and morally upright. He was interested in people in their own right, and not just as forms of capital.
Yet he also opposed projects of other organizations that were motivated by the same concerns. He fought against state intervention (even when it mimicked his own projects) and despised FDR's New Deal programs. He pioneered the Five Dollar Day (a high wage at the time) and provisioned health care, but he was ruthless in his treatment of unions.
There is, I think, a better way of understanding the complex relationship between capitalism and government. It is true that individual capitalists (and others in positions of dominance) are able to wield disproportionate control over the distrinbution of resources, organization of production, and other aspects of social reality, even if they are only able to do so by virtue of the existing social structure, based as it is on inequality. However, one must not assume that they are all working together, or that there is some master plan. Of course everyone looks after their own self-interest. This necessarily leads capitalists into conflict with each other, because every individual succeeds at the expense of many of the others.
Yet, there are some general conditions which are necessary for the capitalist system to function, and this forms a base of shared interests. The state is one important arena in which shared interests are negotiated and protected. Even here, though, there is not total coordination among the members of the supposed capitalist "class." Many cannot connect all the dots and are unaware of the necessity of these general conditions - possibly because their understanding is distorted by ideology - while some are so concerned with short-term personal gain that the long-term prospects of the system itself are of no consequence to them. It is this fact, more than any other, that accounts for "politics" (as opposed to, say, the harmonious coordination and brainwash-based consent of the world of 1984).
But I must take better account of ideology in this scenario. It is true that ideology derives from and often works to support the system (and in that way furthers capitalist aims). It is also true that it may be strategically employed in a disingenous way. Yet it is not just a "lie" used to brainwash the masses (once again, a la 1984). Ideology fundamentally shapes the consciousness of many, many people from all levels of the social hierarchy. As such, when ideology is embraced by capitalists, it may hinder an awareness of what is really necessary for the system to function, and it may even cause a capitalist to knowingly act contrary to the profit motive. Henry Ford demonstrates both of these cases. For example, he did not realize that his refusal to cooperate with unions would result in dramatically increased worker unrest. It was not until a series of violent episodes and the success of a sit-down strike that he realized the necessity of cooperation as a general condition. And Fordlandia is the ultimate example of ideology before profit. Fordlandia was a drain on Ford's resources, and yet he continued to invest in the operation, with the rationale that it was a "civilizing mission."
Ideology, like profit, represents both shared and conflicting interests among the capitalist class. Most accept the set of ideologies associated with modernity (as these represent a dominant mode of thought overall). At the same time, some may emphasize different aspects over others, or hold different opinions regarding how best to achieve these ideals.
It may be said, given all of the above discussion, that the "forces of dominance" in our world are less individual people, and more the complete assemblage of social artifacts (social structure, physical infrastructure, ideas, discourses, modes of communication etc.) that has accrued throughout the entire human history of production and interaction. We are really, in a sense, slaves to our own creations - and the "our" here includes our ancestors.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Superhero as the Ubermensch and the Trope of Good Vs Evil
With The Avengers movie out, I thought I would make a little time for reflection on pop culture. Though there is no dearth of analyses that isolate recurring themes and root them in certain aspects of the human experience, I hope that my own critical variation on this process will not seem too stale. I am not trying to expound some brilliant, novel take on the superhero genre, but rather trying to fit this phenomenon into my own societal narrative (which I have been detailing in this blog).
What strikes me most about the superhero genre is the particular role played by science and technological progress. Superheroes are often portrayed as either career scientists or brainy dilettantes, and the acquisition of superpowers generally occurs as a byproduct of experimentation (or in the case of some - Iron Man, Black Widow, Captain America etc. - through technological “enhancement” of the body and/or the use of advanced weaponry). It is the perfect narrative of Progress. Man is surpassed through science and technology. It is obvious how this derives from and feeds into the Ideology of Progress.
To that end, it is no coincidence that supervillains (e.g. Doctor Doom, Loki, etc.) sometimes practice sorcery (making them representatives of the horrors of pre-modern life). Yet, more often than not, supervillains are as much scientifically-inclined, technologically-enhanced supermen as their superhero counterparts (making them adequate rivals). In the comic book world, what separates Good from Evil is primarily a matter of individual psychology. Supervillians usually have some traumatizing back story that explains their psychological and moral impairment. Furthermore, since supervillians often represent, with varying degrees of subtlety, communists, Nazis, dictators, terrorists, industrialists, and psychopaths, comic book stories construct worlds in which the evils of society are in no way structural, but rather are completely personal. The only way to combat Evil in these worlds is by recourse to violence. The message is clear: it is hard to prevent people from developing psychopathic personalities; the only way to save society is to develop superior “weaponry” to use against these Evil-doers.
I have already written about violence: its seeming necessity within the bounds of the current system, its supposed naturalness, its strategic attribution to personal factors such as religious beliefs, ethnic identity, and even individual psychology. I noted that violence is fundamentally structural and, in other posts, I have argued that the enigmatic violence of Nazis, dictators, and terrorists must be understood in historic and political-economic context. It is clear what the comic book portrayal of Evil does: it obviates an understanding of history and social structure and justifies the use of violence. This tactic, in general, is very politically useful. For example, 10 years ago Saddam Hussein was described as an “evil-doer” and a member of the “Axis of Evil,” but rarely as a puppet of Western interests in the Middle East.
Now, that is not, of course, to say that the superhero genre is a creation of some base political interest. As I have argued before, ideologies may have an appeal all of their own – after all, they do tend to be totalizing narratives that can simplify and explain human experience (and that is satisfying). Questions of origin are rarely productive; it should be enough to say that the ideological realm and social reality are mutually sustaining. That is the idea of the dialectic. Of course, in Marxist tradition, the answer to the origin question is that material reality is ontologically prior to ideology. Still, ideology does have a life of its own that cannot be reduced to the relations of production. Here, though, is the Marxist trump card: one may still critique ideology for the view of social reality that it promotes. This is where I would say that the superhero genre, while innocent, is generally not helpful to the cause of social transformation.
I also have a kind of random question to throw out there: are all superheroes white? Just wondering…
What strikes me most about the superhero genre is the particular role played by science and technological progress. Superheroes are often portrayed as either career scientists or brainy dilettantes, and the acquisition of superpowers generally occurs as a byproduct of experimentation (or in the case of some - Iron Man, Black Widow, Captain America etc. - through technological “enhancement” of the body and/or the use of advanced weaponry). It is the perfect narrative of Progress. Man is surpassed through science and technology. It is obvious how this derives from and feeds into the Ideology of Progress.
To that end, it is no coincidence that supervillains (e.g. Doctor Doom, Loki, etc.) sometimes practice sorcery (making them representatives of the horrors of pre-modern life). Yet, more often than not, supervillains are as much scientifically-inclined, technologically-enhanced supermen as their superhero counterparts (making them adequate rivals). In the comic book world, what separates Good from Evil is primarily a matter of individual psychology. Supervillians usually have some traumatizing back story that explains their psychological and moral impairment. Furthermore, since supervillians often represent, with varying degrees of subtlety, communists, Nazis, dictators, terrorists, industrialists, and psychopaths, comic book stories construct worlds in which the evils of society are in no way structural, but rather are completely personal. The only way to combat Evil in these worlds is by recourse to violence. The message is clear: it is hard to prevent people from developing psychopathic personalities; the only way to save society is to develop superior “weaponry” to use against these Evil-doers.
I have already written about violence: its seeming necessity within the bounds of the current system, its supposed naturalness, its strategic attribution to personal factors such as religious beliefs, ethnic identity, and even individual psychology. I noted that violence is fundamentally structural and, in other posts, I have argued that the enigmatic violence of Nazis, dictators, and terrorists must be understood in historic and political-economic context. It is clear what the comic book portrayal of Evil does: it obviates an understanding of history and social structure and justifies the use of violence. This tactic, in general, is very politically useful. For example, 10 years ago Saddam Hussein was described as an “evil-doer” and a member of the “Axis of Evil,” but rarely as a puppet of Western interests in the Middle East.
Now, that is not, of course, to say that the superhero genre is a creation of some base political interest. As I have argued before, ideologies may have an appeal all of their own – after all, they do tend to be totalizing narratives that can simplify and explain human experience (and that is satisfying). Questions of origin are rarely productive; it should be enough to say that the ideological realm and social reality are mutually sustaining. That is the idea of the dialectic. Of course, in Marxist tradition, the answer to the origin question is that material reality is ontologically prior to ideology. Still, ideology does have a life of its own that cannot be reduced to the relations of production. Here, though, is the Marxist trump card: one may still critique ideology for the view of social reality that it promotes. This is where I would say that the superhero genre, while innocent, is generally not helpful to the cause of social transformation.
I also have a kind of random question to throw out there: are all superheroes white? Just wondering…
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Ideological Foundation of Law
Modern legal discourse and social contract ideology emerged together and are mutually constituting. Social contract ideology posits that members of society are bound together by a “free” contract, the enforcement of which is generally entrusted to the state. According to social contract ideology, however, the state is nothing more than an instrument of the people, who give their consent to allow certain representatives to manage the terms of the contract on everyone’s behalf. What this means, in practice, is that the social contract can only be enforced and protected via these authorized representatives (in other words, the state). I have emphasized this point before, and it will become important later. This is also the key to understanding the concept of "rights." Rights are certain things that are guaranteed to the individual by the state, generally involving protections of property, individual subjectivity (including consciousness, identity, pleasure, and self-determination), and life itself. Without the state, there are no rights.
Of course, as I have already argued, social contract ideology conceals the non-consensual relations that lie at the heart of modern social formations, and in many ways legitimates exploitation by construing it ideologically as “free contract” (such is the case with wage labor). In fact, the modern contract rests on a theory of personhood in which freedom and formal equality are predicated on ownership of property. Coincident with this view is an elaboration of subjectivity which brings it into realm of "own-able" objects; hence freedom of speech, religion, etc. In this scheme, "equality" and "freedom" mean that one's rights derive (ostensibly) not from social relations and status hierarchies but from an inviolable relation between person and thing. Whatever one owns (however that ownership is reckoned) one is free to dispose of as one wishes. Yet, my parenthetical remark is not entirely parenthetical, as social contract ideology conveniently elides (thereby sanctions) the history and extant structure of property relations.
This is the "loophole" that allows for exploitation. Some people do not have any chance of owning any means of production, and must allow themselves to be exploited via wage labor. In fact, capitalism could not function if everyone owned some (viable) means of production. This fact is obscured by social contract ideology, with its "equality" and "freedom." In other words, in orienting societal values solely toward the freedoms and privileges inhering in property ownership, questions concerning the distribution of wealth and relations of production become counterposed to the hegemonic sense of moral order, making them all the more difficult to address. Furthermore, it is fitting that this phenomenon has taken root with the rise of global capitalism, a system in which relations between people are represented as relations between things, and in which non-human ("rational") accounts of the social order are privileged.
Of course, as I have already argued, social contract ideology conceals the non-consensual relations that lie at the heart of modern social formations, and in many ways legitimates exploitation by construing it ideologically as “free contract” (such is the case with wage labor). In fact, the modern contract rests on a theory of personhood in which freedom and formal equality are predicated on ownership of property. Coincident with this view is an elaboration of subjectivity which brings it into realm of "own-able" objects; hence freedom of speech, religion, etc. In this scheme, "equality" and "freedom" mean that one's rights derive (ostensibly) not from social relations and status hierarchies but from an inviolable relation between person and thing. Whatever one owns (however that ownership is reckoned) one is free to dispose of as one wishes. Yet, my parenthetical remark is not entirely parenthetical, as social contract ideology conveniently elides (thereby sanctions) the history and extant structure of property relations.
This is the "loophole" that allows for exploitation. Some people do not have any chance of owning any means of production, and must allow themselves to be exploited via wage labor. In fact, capitalism could not function if everyone owned some (viable) means of production. This fact is obscured by social contract ideology, with its "equality" and "freedom." In other words, in orienting societal values solely toward the freedoms and privileges inhering in property ownership, questions concerning the distribution of wealth and relations of production become counterposed to the hegemonic sense of moral order, making them all the more difficult to address. Furthermore, it is fitting that this phenomenon has taken root with the rise of global capitalism, a system in which relations between people are represented as relations between things, and in which non-human ("rational") accounts of the social order are privileged.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Why Libertarians Are Wrong
I have elaborated on science, and now I would like to elaborate a bit on the state. It got a nice pummeling from me a couple of posts ago, when I claimed it was essentially a tool of violence wielded by capitalist interests. Does this put me along side "small government" libertarians?
Maybe in some respects. But here are all the areas where I think libertarians are flat out wrong:
1. Libertarians do not view the state as a servant of the capitalist class; they believe it is in an independent source of power (by which capitalists may actually be oppressed);
2. Libertarians completely misunderstand the nature of capitalism. They believe it is primarily characterized by free markets and private enterprise, when it is actually characterized by wage labor and monopolization of production and, in fact, both limits the the freedom of the market and subsidizes enterprise (through use of the state, of course). Libertarians tend to see these things as "corruption" rather than the inherent nature of the system.
3. It follows that libertarians believe if the extent of the state were limited, free markets would flourish and the market would more rationally and efficiently organize society than the state. They do not realize the beast we are dealing with, and that eliminating government agencies would be akin to simply cutting off one of its limb (with the possibility of regeneration).
4. Libertarians accept without question all aspects of liberal/neoliberal ideology: the sacredness of the individual, the rationale of the social contract, the principle of "liberty" embedded in "democratic societies" (whatever liberty and democracy mean in actual practice...), and the ability of all people to be successful if they just try hard enough.
5. Regarding that last point, libertarians are totally blind to the inequalities that are built into the system. They seem to think the playing field is level, and that everyone could be a millionare if they just worked sufficiently hard (maybe they even take it for granted that there will always be people naturally "lazy" enough to take all the undesirable, low-paying jobs).
In essense, libertarians buy into all the myths and ideologies of the modern social order, probably more than anyone else, and simply try to make reality conform to those myths. What they really need to do is think more critically about what is actually going on.
There is one more significant way in which I diverge from libertarians, the explanation of which will entail that I contradict my two-posts-ago comments somewhat... which I think is totally healthy behavior. Yes, I believe that the state exists at the behest of the capitalist class and that it always ultimately serves capitalist interests. That is vitally important to remember because pinning one's hopes on the state is a risky business (as many of the Russian revolutionaries discovered). BUT, under very narrow and circumscribed circumstances, eliminating any longer-term perspective, it has its benefits.
Generally, once again if one is only thinking in the short-term and within the bounds of the current system, state management of social services is more beneficial than complete privatization. This holds true for education, health care, transportation, and would likely also hold for financial services if such a thing were ever attempted (it won't be). This is the case because the people who are actually involved in the administration of these programs and services cannot profit in the same way as those who are more indirectly involved. It ensures standards, quality controls, and more or less universal accessibility (often more towards the "less" end though...). And often the people who directly provide the services are knowledgable and driven by the noblest of intentions (not profit). On the other hand, when the profit-motive is directly involved in the provision of services, the consequences are often disasterous. Scams abound, unqualified people jump on the bandwagon, and disparities in quality widen (thus reinforcing existing social inequalities). The ability to profit brings out the worst of human qualities, not the best, as many libertarian types and others insist. But isn't government wasteful and inefficient, they counter? Everything is wasteful and inefficient; that is the nature of bureaucracy, whether public or private. The arena of education, in particular, demonstrates very desicively that public management is by no means less efficient or less effective than private management; to the contrary, public schools often do a better job - particularly with the challenges they are given - than private schools. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the supposed "crisis" of American education is a fabrication of political/economic interest groups.
So, if the only two options I am given are state control within the framework of the current system, and privatization within the framework of the current system, in most cases I would prefer state control. But that is like a slave choosing the house over the fields. I would REALLY prefer not to be enslaved.
Maybe in some respects. But here are all the areas where I think libertarians are flat out wrong:
1. Libertarians do not view the state as a servant of the capitalist class; they believe it is in an independent source of power (by which capitalists may actually be oppressed);
2. Libertarians completely misunderstand the nature of capitalism. They believe it is primarily characterized by free markets and private enterprise, when it is actually characterized by wage labor and monopolization of production and, in fact, both limits the the freedom of the market and subsidizes enterprise (through use of the state, of course). Libertarians tend to see these things as "corruption" rather than the inherent nature of the system.
3. It follows that libertarians believe if the extent of the state were limited, free markets would flourish and the market would more rationally and efficiently organize society than the state. They do not realize the beast we are dealing with, and that eliminating government agencies would be akin to simply cutting off one of its limb (with the possibility of regeneration).
4. Libertarians accept without question all aspects of liberal/neoliberal ideology: the sacredness of the individual, the rationale of the social contract, the principle of "liberty" embedded in "democratic societies" (whatever liberty and democracy mean in actual practice...), and the ability of all people to be successful if they just try hard enough.
5. Regarding that last point, libertarians are totally blind to the inequalities that are built into the system. They seem to think the playing field is level, and that everyone could be a millionare if they just worked sufficiently hard (maybe they even take it for granted that there will always be people naturally "lazy" enough to take all the undesirable, low-paying jobs).
In essense, libertarians buy into all the myths and ideologies of the modern social order, probably more than anyone else, and simply try to make reality conform to those myths. What they really need to do is think more critically about what is actually going on.
There is one more significant way in which I diverge from libertarians, the explanation of which will entail that I contradict my two-posts-ago comments somewhat... which I think is totally healthy behavior. Yes, I believe that the state exists at the behest of the capitalist class and that it always ultimately serves capitalist interests. That is vitally important to remember because pinning one's hopes on the state is a risky business (as many of the Russian revolutionaries discovered). BUT, under very narrow and circumscribed circumstances, eliminating any longer-term perspective, it has its benefits.
Generally, once again if one is only thinking in the short-term and within the bounds of the current system, state management of social services is more beneficial than complete privatization. This holds true for education, health care, transportation, and would likely also hold for financial services if such a thing were ever attempted (it won't be). This is the case because the people who are actually involved in the administration of these programs and services cannot profit in the same way as those who are more indirectly involved. It ensures standards, quality controls, and more or less universal accessibility (often more towards the "less" end though...). And often the people who directly provide the services are knowledgable and driven by the noblest of intentions (not profit). On the other hand, when the profit-motive is directly involved in the provision of services, the consequences are often disasterous. Scams abound, unqualified people jump on the bandwagon, and disparities in quality widen (thus reinforcing existing social inequalities). The ability to profit brings out the worst of human qualities, not the best, as many libertarian types and others insist. But isn't government wasteful and inefficient, they counter? Everything is wasteful and inefficient; that is the nature of bureaucracy, whether public or private. The arena of education, in particular, demonstrates very desicively that public management is by no means less efficient or less effective than private management; to the contrary, public schools often do a better job - particularly with the challenges they are given - than private schools. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the supposed "crisis" of American education is a fabrication of political/economic interest groups.
So, if the only two options I am given are state control within the framework of the current system, and privatization within the framework of the current system, in most cases I would prefer state control. But that is like a slave choosing the house over the fields. I would REALLY prefer not to be enslaved.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Science and Progress
I wanted to make one further digression about science (and it seems that I have spent quite a bit of my blogging energy critiquing science; only because I like to attack sacred cows).
It appears that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to envisioning a world beyond capitalism (even valorizing some aspects of the world before capitalsm) is the notion that, if the social division of labor were significantly altered (such that academia and research, in its current state, would not be possible), all scientific advancement would cease and the world would therefore come to an end.
First, I would challenge anyone making that claim to consider all the ways in which the ideology of progress is permeating the assumptions they are making.
But more substantively, I think it is necessary to examine the notion of the "scientific advancement" itself. From an epistemological stand point, there is the question of whether or not our knowledge is increasing, and our worldviews more closely approximateing "the truth." (In these types of contexts, the collect pronoun "our" is used, despite the fact that the knowledge and worldviews in question are anything but shared, because scientists have the special privilege of representing the universalizing goals of humankind.) There is also the practical matter of the material gains (namely technology) which science bestows upon society (once again, the small fraction of the world's population who actually has access to these gains are the only people who matter).
First, the epistemological. Science is underpinned by positivist ideology (or "philosophy" if you prefer... yes, I'm being a dick). This view holds that humans have direct, unmediated access to reality, and to whatever extent that access is mediated, proper scientific procedure can circumvent the impediment. Accordingly, a positivist uses the term "knowledge" to refer to an entity that: 1) corresponds exactly to reality; 2) is discrete and quantifiable; 3) can be possessed as an object; 4) exists somewhere "out there" in the world, waiting to be discovered by humans; and 5) is not altered by human contact. Thus, the view that knowledge is "increasing."
Positivist thought rests on shakey ground. For one thing, it can be quite forcefully argued that human access to reality IS mediated. Reality is far too complex for humans to comprehend in any meaningful way without filtering and organization. For example, people are bombarded with stimuli every second of the day; in order to function at all, most of these stimuli must be completely ignored. In other words, perception is highly selective. Prior experience and mental categories often determine what people pay attention to. [Side note: this is one reason why it is so difficult for people to detect differences among unfamiliar things. For example, individuals of other races ("all ___ people look alike"), or pieces of music within an unfamiliar genre (for people who don't often listen to classical music, all classical music sounds alike!). Over time, people learn to pay attention to meaningful differences, and downplay characteristics that do not have semantic value (like the characteristics common to an "ethnic group" or genre of music).]
Countless observations of scientific practice - primarily from "science studies" disciplines like sociology of science, philosophy of science, and history of science - confirm the "selective perception" inherent in scientific research. This extends to what questions are asked, how they are asked, what aspects of a phenomenon are deemed important (even what gets defined as a "phenomenon"!), and the perceptual/conceptual limits imposed by the tools that are used to answer these questions. Furthermore, scientific thought and all of its conceptual repertoire is saturated with cultural, social, political assumptions, often to which the scientist is more or less blind. (I could list plenty of examples, but for now I will just mention the practice, common among biologists, of using the male as the "norm." I have given other examples in previous posts, and am sure I will provide more in the future.)
If human perception and cognition are mediated, processed, organized, then it would follow that what positivists view as a gradual collection of bits of knowledge, could also be seen as an elaboration of a particular framework for interpretation, proceeding according to its own logic and principles, to fit new or unaccounted for experience. This is not to take a "relativist" stance, as the interpretive framework would have some connection to a reality that does exist, and the ensuing elaboration would likewise have to be corroborated to a certain degree by experience. It merely rejects a total correspondence between any framework and reality. And it does call into the question the notion of an "increase in knowledge," as "increase" is reformulated as "elaboration."
What, then, of the idea that "we" (however that is defined) are more closely approaching "the truth" (however that is defined)? I think the issue was best approached by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Throughout the book, Kuhn argues that the progression of scientific paradigms (or, conceptual models, including language, modes of practice, and use of technology) does not follow any evident pattern or logic. In that sense, it is not a true "progression" but more of a sucession. In many cases, scientific communities have reverted back to previous paradigms. Kuhn insists that while the paradigms themselves do not get "better" in any sense, or do not more closely resemble reality, the practical use to which these paradigms are put, including prediction, does become more effective.
I would argue that this is partly a result of the sheer amount of money and resources (human and material) that have been increasingly poured into science. Just to exaggerate the situation beyond probability in the interest of highlighting a truth: if you assemble a whole bunch of people for the purpose of building mouse traps, and give them limitless time and materials, they will probably keep devising better mouse traps, even if only at the most basic level of trial and error, regardless of whether they understand any principles of mouse-trapery.
But there is another aspect of the technical efficacy of science, and that is capitalism. Capitalist relations allocate money and other resources, and capitalist interests, as well as the ideologies on which they depend, provide, for the most part, the "problems" that need to be solved along with the financial impetus to solve them. Because, in the end, as much as scientists might protest, the enterprise of science is oriented toward capitalist ends, and those ends require, in part, the profileration of technology, modes of efficiency, and certain types of technical/managerial know-how, that is what science, in fact, produces. Science bows to the demands of capitalism.
So, then, back to the original problem. If scientific research ceased to function as it does today, would life be worthless? We would not be parting ways with "The Truth" (and, as should be quite obvious from history, it is possible to live a more subsistence-focused lifestyle and still be able to contemplate the world and elaborate interpretive frameworks; this pursuit does not require money, institutions, or special tools.) We would, it is true, inhibit (but not prevent, which should also be clear from history) the production of technology. Once again, though, I pose the questions: Is it only technology which makes life worthwhile or even enjoyable? And are the benefits of technology really worth it, when they are circumscribed within a tiny segment of the human population and entail the suffering and poverty of all the rest (see previous post)?
These questions should, at the very least, be cause for reflection, if nothing else.
It appears that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to envisioning a world beyond capitalism (even valorizing some aspects of the world before capitalsm) is the notion that, if the social division of labor were significantly altered (such that academia and research, in its current state, would not be possible), all scientific advancement would cease and the world would therefore come to an end.
First, I would challenge anyone making that claim to consider all the ways in which the ideology of progress is permeating the assumptions they are making.
But more substantively, I think it is necessary to examine the notion of the "scientific advancement" itself. From an epistemological stand point, there is the question of whether or not our knowledge is increasing, and our worldviews more closely approximateing "the truth." (In these types of contexts, the collect pronoun "our" is used, despite the fact that the knowledge and worldviews in question are anything but shared, because scientists have the special privilege of representing the universalizing goals of humankind.) There is also the practical matter of the material gains (namely technology) which science bestows upon society (once again, the small fraction of the world's population who actually has access to these gains are the only people who matter).
First, the epistemological. Science is underpinned by positivist ideology (or "philosophy" if you prefer... yes, I'm being a dick). This view holds that humans have direct, unmediated access to reality, and to whatever extent that access is mediated, proper scientific procedure can circumvent the impediment. Accordingly, a positivist uses the term "knowledge" to refer to an entity that: 1) corresponds exactly to reality; 2) is discrete and quantifiable; 3) can be possessed as an object; 4) exists somewhere "out there" in the world, waiting to be discovered by humans; and 5) is not altered by human contact. Thus, the view that knowledge is "increasing."
Positivist thought rests on shakey ground. For one thing, it can be quite forcefully argued that human access to reality IS mediated. Reality is far too complex for humans to comprehend in any meaningful way without filtering and organization. For example, people are bombarded with stimuli every second of the day; in order to function at all, most of these stimuli must be completely ignored. In other words, perception is highly selective. Prior experience and mental categories often determine what people pay attention to. [Side note: this is one reason why it is so difficult for people to detect differences among unfamiliar things. For example, individuals of other races ("all ___ people look alike"), or pieces of music within an unfamiliar genre (for people who don't often listen to classical music, all classical music sounds alike!). Over time, people learn to pay attention to meaningful differences, and downplay characteristics that do not have semantic value (like the characteristics common to an "ethnic group" or genre of music).]
Countless observations of scientific practice - primarily from "science studies" disciplines like sociology of science, philosophy of science, and history of science - confirm the "selective perception" inherent in scientific research. This extends to what questions are asked, how they are asked, what aspects of a phenomenon are deemed important (even what gets defined as a "phenomenon"!), and the perceptual/conceptual limits imposed by the tools that are used to answer these questions. Furthermore, scientific thought and all of its conceptual repertoire is saturated with cultural, social, political assumptions, often to which the scientist is more or less blind. (I could list plenty of examples, but for now I will just mention the practice, common among biologists, of using the male as the "norm." I have given other examples in previous posts, and am sure I will provide more in the future.)
If human perception and cognition are mediated, processed, organized, then it would follow that what positivists view as a gradual collection of bits of knowledge, could also be seen as an elaboration of a particular framework for interpretation, proceeding according to its own logic and principles, to fit new or unaccounted for experience. This is not to take a "relativist" stance, as the interpretive framework would have some connection to a reality that does exist, and the ensuing elaboration would likewise have to be corroborated to a certain degree by experience. It merely rejects a total correspondence between any framework and reality. And it does call into the question the notion of an "increase in knowledge," as "increase" is reformulated as "elaboration."
What, then, of the idea that "we" (however that is defined) are more closely approaching "the truth" (however that is defined)? I think the issue was best approached by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Throughout the book, Kuhn argues that the progression of scientific paradigms (or, conceptual models, including language, modes of practice, and use of technology) does not follow any evident pattern or logic. In that sense, it is not a true "progression" but more of a sucession. In many cases, scientific communities have reverted back to previous paradigms. Kuhn insists that while the paradigms themselves do not get "better" in any sense, or do not more closely resemble reality, the practical use to which these paradigms are put, including prediction, does become more effective.
I would argue that this is partly a result of the sheer amount of money and resources (human and material) that have been increasingly poured into science. Just to exaggerate the situation beyond probability in the interest of highlighting a truth: if you assemble a whole bunch of people for the purpose of building mouse traps, and give them limitless time and materials, they will probably keep devising better mouse traps, even if only at the most basic level of trial and error, regardless of whether they understand any principles of mouse-trapery.
But there is another aspect of the technical efficacy of science, and that is capitalism. Capitalist relations allocate money and other resources, and capitalist interests, as well as the ideologies on which they depend, provide, for the most part, the "problems" that need to be solved along with the financial impetus to solve them. Because, in the end, as much as scientists might protest, the enterprise of science is oriented toward capitalist ends, and those ends require, in part, the profileration of technology, modes of efficiency, and certain types of technical/managerial know-how, that is what science, in fact, produces. Science bows to the demands of capitalism.
So, then, back to the original problem. If scientific research ceased to function as it does today, would life be worthless? We would not be parting ways with "The Truth" (and, as should be quite obvious from history, it is possible to live a more subsistence-focused lifestyle and still be able to contemplate the world and elaborate interpretive frameworks; this pursuit does not require money, institutions, or special tools.) We would, it is true, inhibit (but not prevent, which should also be clear from history) the production of technology. Once again, though, I pose the questions: Is it only technology which makes life worthwhile or even enjoyable? And are the benefits of technology really worth it, when they are circumscribed within a tiny segment of the human population and entail the suffering and poverty of all the rest (see previous post)?
These questions should, at the very least, be cause for reflection, if nothing else.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
What Other World Is Possible?
This was supposed to be a lazy, cut-and-paste from an email, post. I just realized I was too lazy to even mention that it is an email that I wrote to someone
-------------------------------------
That is the question, isn't it? I think it boils down to the problem you formulated in our last phone coversation: have we reached a terminal point, beyond which no change is possible, or is there still possibility for structural transformation?
I have been reading someone who argues in favor of regionalization, at least as a positive direction to head in. It seems possible that this could occur, if shifting geopolitical alignments and general chaos in the interstate system were to someday intensify to the point of destroying the international apparatus of governance. Though regionalization in and of itself does not guarantee that the relations of production will be significantly altered. I could even imagine an infinite oscillation between the wax and wane of global integration.
One COULD look for the evolutionary regression that Marx expected: a sort of resurrection of the peasant industry, where production is organized more locally and communally, yet with all the benefit of new technology, and coincident with the dissolution of transnational and national forms of governance.
But the question still remains: what would it take to dismantle all of the current power structures? As you noted, the "technologies" - and I don't know if you meant it this broadly, but I would include all of the pertinent physical, institutional, and ideological infrastructure - have grown like weeds and stretched their tentacles into every aspect of life. It is not as simple as targeting corporations, or any single institution, regime, or set of policies. For one thing, the institutional basis of modern power relations is vast. Not only is "the state" very large and lacking definite boundaries (e.g. all the "private" contractors), but there is all the beaurocratic administration that pervades both the public and private sectors (as if there is a difference between the two); the stores of personal records culled from various sources, and to which corporations and banks, in particular, seem to have unfettered access; everything associated with our system of "justice," including the prison-industrial complex and all the suveillance capabilities of the police; the educational institutions and media outlets that often function as propoganda machines; the various foundations, nonprofit organizations, and research centers that attempt to manage populations based, in part, on the collection of copious amounts of individual data; the institutions of public health and medicine that have become less of a public "service" and more of a crusade to influence personal habits, augmented by their newly acquired abilities to define when life begins and ends; and, of course, science itself has become more than a delusional quest to master nature, as human beings and social processes are brought under its aegis (as a form of "nature").
But even then, one must not look solely at the institutions themselves, as they produce an extensive body of rhetoric, concepts, and values (which have in many cases taken on a life of their own) that instill habits, shape consciousness, and legitimize the interests that propogate them. There is the entire corpus of secular doctrine, which enshrines "the individual" as a sacred deity, and promotes vague and elusive values like "liberty" and "democracy," and, of course, "individual rights." As a corollary, there is the neoliberal ideology that equates capitalism with free markets, competition, and private enterprise (although quite the opposite is the case). Most important is the neoliberal myth that the system is just and anyone can be rich if they just try hard enough (with associated value that wealth is the greatest thing to aspire to, as well as a measure of a person's worth). There is also the secular ideology of progress, which views technology and scientific advancements as the only thing that makes life worth living; which would prolong life as long as physically possible; which insists that knowledge and wisdom are not possible without institutions of higher education; and which constantly strives to "reform" rather than to radically question. In addition to various manifestations of secularism, there are all the "isms" that serve to create false unities and enemies: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, etc. These are aided by the attitudes toward violence and war that are nurtured by popular entertainment and public imagery.
It seems that changing the system would entail: getting rid of the entire web of institutions that structure most of human social life, as well as actually altering everyone's consciousness. I guess that would qualify as a tall order.
So, then, to return to the question from which this all started: does this mean we're stuck?
-------------------------------------
That is the question, isn't it? I think it boils down to the problem you formulated in our last phone coversation: have we reached a terminal point, beyond which no change is possible, or is there still possibility for structural transformation?
I have been reading someone who argues in favor of regionalization, at least as a positive direction to head in. It seems possible that this could occur, if shifting geopolitical alignments and general chaos in the interstate system were to someday intensify to the point of destroying the international apparatus of governance. Though regionalization in and of itself does not guarantee that the relations of production will be significantly altered. I could even imagine an infinite oscillation between the wax and wane of global integration.
One COULD look for the evolutionary regression that Marx expected: a sort of resurrection of the peasant industry, where production is organized more locally and communally, yet with all the benefit of new technology, and coincident with the dissolution of transnational and national forms of governance.
But the question still remains: what would it take to dismantle all of the current power structures? As you noted, the "technologies" - and I don't know if you meant it this broadly, but I would include all of the pertinent physical, institutional, and ideological infrastructure - have grown like weeds and stretched their tentacles into every aspect of life. It is not as simple as targeting corporations, or any single institution, regime, or set of policies. For one thing, the institutional basis of modern power relations is vast. Not only is "the state" very large and lacking definite boundaries (e.g. all the "private" contractors), but there is all the beaurocratic administration that pervades both the public and private sectors (as if there is a difference between the two); the stores of personal records culled from various sources, and to which corporations and banks, in particular, seem to have unfettered access; everything associated with our system of "justice," including the prison-industrial complex and all the suveillance capabilities of the police; the educational institutions and media outlets that often function as propoganda machines; the various foundations, nonprofit organizations, and research centers that attempt to manage populations based, in part, on the collection of copious amounts of individual data; the institutions of public health and medicine that have become less of a public "service" and more of a crusade to influence personal habits, augmented by their newly acquired abilities to define when life begins and ends; and, of course, science itself has become more than a delusional quest to master nature, as human beings and social processes are brought under its aegis (as a form of "nature").
But even then, one must not look solely at the institutions themselves, as they produce an extensive body of rhetoric, concepts, and values (which have in many cases taken on a life of their own) that instill habits, shape consciousness, and legitimize the interests that propogate them. There is the entire corpus of secular doctrine, which enshrines "the individual" as a sacred deity, and promotes vague and elusive values like "liberty" and "democracy," and, of course, "individual rights." As a corollary, there is the neoliberal ideology that equates capitalism with free markets, competition, and private enterprise (although quite the opposite is the case). Most important is the neoliberal myth that the system is just and anyone can be rich if they just try hard enough (with associated value that wealth is the greatest thing to aspire to, as well as a measure of a person's worth). There is also the secular ideology of progress, which views technology and scientific advancements as the only thing that makes life worth living; which would prolong life as long as physically possible; which insists that knowledge and wisdom are not possible without institutions of higher education; and which constantly strives to "reform" rather than to radically question. In addition to various manifestations of secularism, there are all the "isms" that serve to create false unities and enemies: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, etc. These are aided by the attitudes toward violence and war that are nurtured by popular entertainment and public imagery.
It seems that changing the system would entail: getting rid of the entire web of institutions that structure most of human social life, as well as actually altering everyone's consciousness. I guess that would qualify as a tall order.
So, then, to return to the question from which this all started: does this mean we're stuck?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
National Standards: The Tipping Point
The culminating moment of opposition between the national standards movement (which sought to retain, if not expand, the role of the federal government and the Department of Education) and the school choice movement that countered it, came in 1994. After A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, national committees were established in every major school subject to create voluntary national standards. The idea was to raise the quality of public education for everyone by outlining a clear set of common standards that would guide the improvement of curricula and instruction.
One of the last subjects to be tackled was history. Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, funded and participated in the creation of the history standards. However, by the time the standards were nearing a state of completion, Cheney quit her position at the NEH and turned her attention to political concerns. An important mid-term election was approaching (the Republicans would finally gain control of Congress that fall) and her husband, Dick Cheney (also a Republican), was considering a presidential candidacy. At this time many Republican kingmakers had taken a strong interest in education and were full-fledged supporters of school choice. If you were a Republican with political ambitions, you had no choice but to take up the mantel of choice.
But Cheney did not just run away from the national history standards. She launched an all-out attack on them. She claimed that she had been bamboozled, and that the standards had been "hijacked" by a bunch of academic radicals who sought to use education to undermine the foundations of American society and incite a socialist/communist revolution. Her supporting examples (e.g. how many times George Washington is mentioned versus Harriet Tubman) are gross distortions of the documents, and sometimes outright false. Considering the level of her involvement with these standards, I have a hard time believing that she merely misinterpreted them. To me, the distortions seem completely intentional. In reality, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary with these standards, except that they demanded much of students' ability to reason and form arguments. In fact, my own history education (which I would consider anything but radical) seemed to resemble the standards, with perhaps less rigor.
The article Cheney wrote for the Wall Street Journal ended up being a huge political cash cow. The controversy dominated public and political discussion for months and provided a platform for the Republicans to tighten their ideological narrative. (Just as a side note, the Senate voted to symbolically condemn the history standards; the only "nay" was a Republican who felt the wording was not strong enough.)
What Cheney and those who followed her were able to do was portray a certain relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education: that academic radicals had in some way infiltrated or aligned with government bureaucracies and were simultaneously seeking to foment some kind of socialist or communist revolution. In this way, Cheney et al. were able to strengthen associations that derived from the core of their ideology, most notably the connection between projects and processes of national scope and radical social change, federal control and communist revolution.
With the "curriculum wars" of 1994, the idea of national standards was dead. The last remnants of what grew out of A Nation at Risk survived in the form of high-stakes testing and "accountability," and quickly adapted themselves to a new world dominated by "choice."
One of the last subjects to be tackled was history. Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, funded and participated in the creation of the history standards. However, by the time the standards were nearing a state of completion, Cheney quit her position at the NEH and turned her attention to political concerns. An important mid-term election was approaching (the Republicans would finally gain control of Congress that fall) and her husband, Dick Cheney (also a Republican), was considering a presidential candidacy. At this time many Republican kingmakers had taken a strong interest in education and were full-fledged supporters of school choice. If you were a Republican with political ambitions, you had no choice but to take up the mantel of choice.
But Cheney did not just run away from the national history standards. She launched an all-out attack on them. She claimed that she had been bamboozled, and that the standards had been "hijacked" by a bunch of academic radicals who sought to use education to undermine the foundations of American society and incite a socialist/communist revolution. Her supporting examples (e.g. how many times George Washington is mentioned versus Harriet Tubman) are gross distortions of the documents, and sometimes outright false. Considering the level of her involvement with these standards, I have a hard time believing that she merely misinterpreted them. To me, the distortions seem completely intentional. In reality, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary with these standards, except that they demanded much of students' ability to reason and form arguments. In fact, my own history education (which I would consider anything but radical) seemed to resemble the standards, with perhaps less rigor.
The article Cheney wrote for the Wall Street Journal ended up being a huge political cash cow. The controversy dominated public and political discussion for months and provided a platform for the Republicans to tighten their ideological narrative. (Just as a side note, the Senate voted to symbolically condemn the history standards; the only "nay" was a Republican who felt the wording was not strong enough.)
What Cheney and those who followed her were able to do was portray a certain relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education: that academic radicals had in some way infiltrated or aligned with government bureaucracies and were simultaneously seeking to foment some kind of socialist or communist revolution. In this way, Cheney et al. were able to strengthen associations that derived from the core of their ideology, most notably the connection between projects and processes of national scope and radical social change, federal control and communist revolution.
With the "curriculum wars" of 1994, the idea of national standards was dead. The last remnants of what grew out of A Nation at Risk survived in the form of high-stakes testing and "accountability," and quickly adapted themselves to a new world dominated by "choice."
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Role of Education in a Capitalist Society
It is not easy to answer the question, "What is the purpose of education?" There are so many competing ideas about what education should be. Furthermore, the history of the development of the institutional apparatus that has become the modern education system is incredibly complex. However, from a historical materialist perspective, neither the "should" nor the "was" directly explain what is. The past may provide the materials, and ideology may affect the nuances, but only current conditions (relationships and structures) can account for the role that education actually plays in late capitalist society.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Monday, June 20, 2011
More On Ideology
In order to respond to the question posed at the end of my last post, it is necessary to look at the topic of ideology in a little more depth.
I noted in my first post on this subject that the word "ideology" need not always be inflected with the quality of being "false" or "distorted." Rather, I use the term in the more general sense of being a "point of view" - albeit with a distinct relationship to particular human institutions and social structures (therefore, not just any random opinion that a person happens to have).
That being said, I recognized before, and I think it is important to emphasize again, that ideology very well can be a purposeful distortion of a perceived reality, for the express aim of encouraging desirable attitudes and behaviors. This strategy is often pursued through the creation of ideal types, in order to obscure the nature of reality.
Thus, we hear:
-monopolistic entities extolling the virtues of the "free market" and competition. Capitalists desire open competition only when they, individually, are exempt. In other words, they all wish to monopolize monopolies. Furthermore, the idea of the "free market" and the illusion of an equal playing field are useful to sustain the inequalities that are necessary for (as well as a consequence of) capitalist gain. Hence, while capitalists do not abide by "free market" values in principle or in actual fact (profit would be minimal and unsustainable), they find it useful to promote neoliberal rhetoric and policies in order to sustain conditions that actually defy neoliberal principles. The "free market" has never existed, but it is very useful to pretend it does.
-imperial powers invoking "democracy" to justify unilateral military action. Once again, "democracy" is merely a strategy that some dominant groups can afford to employ in order to channel potential resistance to their rule into activities that support it. The state has never existed for the purpose of keeping peace or protecting individual rights. It has always been a tool for dominant groups to maintain inequalities and control the distribution of resources. The concept of "democracy" conceals global and national power structures. The equation of "democracy" with the ability to vote and express dissenting views is an ingenious way of creating the illusion that democracy actually exists. Furthermore, the strength of people's emotional attachment to the idea renders it an easy way to justify all sorts actions (including the death of civilians in wars that further capitalist aims). The United States' efforts to support democracy around the world only appears sporatic and inconsistent if one accepts the surface explanation for these acts.
-those in control of repressive state machinery celebrating "liberty." The concept of "liberty" works in much the same way as "democracy." The emotional attachment to "liberty" may even be a bit stronger. If one really thinks about it, though, the concept of "liberty" becomes nonsensical. What does it mean? It is empty, vapid. Clearly complete and absolute freedom is undesirable (we conceive of this hypothetical situation as the epitome of chaos). Submission to rules is a requisite for the existence of society. Is the issue then which rules and how many rules we should have to follow? These are complex questions, and the concept of "liberty" does not even begin to address them. If anything, the concept prevents us from asking these questions, diverting our attention elsewhere so that we never fully examine the foundations of our society.
When ideology is viewed in this light, the United States' cultivation of Islamophobia and the inconsistency of this action with actual U.S. relations with Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Islamist groups, may become more understandable.
The creation of "enemies," internal and external, is widely useful. It is obvious how this tactic diverts attention, responsibility, and blame... in addition to the fact that fear is a wonderful motivator. Islamophobia is only the latest incarnation of this longstanding tradition. Since some Islamist groups are questioning the basis of U.S./Western hegemony, turning the tables and portraying Arabs/Middle Easterners/Muslims/Islamists (usually undifferentiated) as irrational, unpredictable, uncivilized enemies of "modernity" undermines valid critiques of global political/economic structures of dominance. Therefore, as one would expect, Islamophobia serves a dual purpose.
I noted in my first post on this subject that the word "ideology" need not always be inflected with the quality of being "false" or "distorted." Rather, I use the term in the more general sense of being a "point of view" - albeit with a distinct relationship to particular human institutions and social structures (therefore, not just any random opinion that a person happens to have).
That being said, I recognized before, and I think it is important to emphasize again, that ideology very well can be a purposeful distortion of a perceived reality, for the express aim of encouraging desirable attitudes and behaviors. This strategy is often pursued through the creation of ideal types, in order to obscure the nature of reality.
Thus, we hear:
-monopolistic entities extolling the virtues of the "free market" and competition. Capitalists desire open competition only when they, individually, are exempt. In other words, they all wish to monopolize monopolies. Furthermore, the idea of the "free market" and the illusion of an equal playing field are useful to sustain the inequalities that are necessary for (as well as a consequence of) capitalist gain. Hence, while capitalists do not abide by "free market" values in principle or in actual fact (profit would be minimal and unsustainable), they find it useful to promote neoliberal rhetoric and policies in order to sustain conditions that actually defy neoliberal principles. The "free market" has never existed, but it is very useful to pretend it does.
-imperial powers invoking "democracy" to justify unilateral military action. Once again, "democracy" is merely a strategy that some dominant groups can afford to employ in order to channel potential resistance to their rule into activities that support it. The state has never existed for the purpose of keeping peace or protecting individual rights. It has always been a tool for dominant groups to maintain inequalities and control the distribution of resources. The concept of "democracy" conceals global and national power structures. The equation of "democracy" with the ability to vote and express dissenting views is an ingenious way of creating the illusion that democracy actually exists. Furthermore, the strength of people's emotional attachment to the idea renders it an easy way to justify all sorts actions (including the death of civilians in wars that further capitalist aims). The United States' efforts to support democracy around the world only appears sporatic and inconsistent if one accepts the surface explanation for these acts.
-those in control of repressive state machinery celebrating "liberty." The concept of "liberty" works in much the same way as "democracy." The emotional attachment to "liberty" may even be a bit stronger. If one really thinks about it, though, the concept of "liberty" becomes nonsensical. What does it mean? It is empty, vapid. Clearly complete and absolute freedom is undesirable (we conceive of this hypothetical situation as the epitome of chaos). Submission to rules is a requisite for the existence of society. Is the issue then which rules and how many rules we should have to follow? These are complex questions, and the concept of "liberty" does not even begin to address them. If anything, the concept prevents us from asking these questions, diverting our attention elsewhere so that we never fully examine the foundations of our society.
When ideology is viewed in this light, the United States' cultivation of Islamophobia and the inconsistency of this action with actual U.S. relations with Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Islamist groups, may become more understandable.
The creation of "enemies," internal and external, is widely useful. It is obvious how this tactic diverts attention, responsibility, and blame... in addition to the fact that fear is a wonderful motivator. Islamophobia is only the latest incarnation of this longstanding tradition. Since some Islamist groups are questioning the basis of U.S./Western hegemony, turning the tables and portraying Arabs/Middle Easterners/Muslims/Islamists (usually undifferentiated) as irrational, unpredictable, uncivilized enemies of "modernity" undermines valid critiques of global political/economic structures of dominance. Therefore, as one would expect, Islamophobia serves a dual purpose.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
U.S. Political Debates
Just a brief interlude from recent topics, because I want to make a comment about political debates in the U.S.
Since now it is not possible to accommodate any diversity of opinion within either political party, debates no longer serve the purpose of setting forth candidates' positions on the issues. However, as I watched the Republican debate last night, I thought about how well debates function as a means of consolidating and propagating ideology. When the same ideas are expressed repeatedly by all candidates, and in nearly identical terms, those ideas are more likely to seem right and common sensical. Even the most intelligent people are more apt to draw on the discourses that already surround them rather than create their own anew. Thus, just by sheer repetition these political soundbites become embedded in the popular conscious and dominate the way people think and talk about the social order. We hear the politicians stress over and over that government is not able to create and innovate as well as the "private sector" and consequently we take this "truth" for granted. We don't consider how this distinction is tautological, as "private sector" is defined merely as that which is not "government," even if differences in substance do not apply. We do not think about how corporations run the government, and how government has only ever existed as a tool of the dominant/wealthy. And as a result, we accept an explanation of social problems that is based on nonsensical categories and nonexistent relationships.
Of course, it is clear that the moderators are totally in on the game, as the quality of their questions only encourage these prefabricated, thoughtless answers.
Since now it is not possible to accommodate any diversity of opinion within either political party, debates no longer serve the purpose of setting forth candidates' positions on the issues. However, as I watched the Republican debate last night, I thought about how well debates function as a means of consolidating and propagating ideology. When the same ideas are expressed repeatedly by all candidates, and in nearly identical terms, those ideas are more likely to seem right and common sensical. Even the most intelligent people are more apt to draw on the discourses that already surround them rather than create their own anew. Thus, just by sheer repetition these political soundbites become embedded in the popular conscious and dominate the way people think and talk about the social order. We hear the politicians stress over and over that government is not able to create and innovate as well as the "private sector" and consequently we take this "truth" for granted. We don't consider how this distinction is tautological, as "private sector" is defined merely as that which is not "government," even if differences in substance do not apply. We do not think about how corporations run the government, and how government has only ever existed as a tool of the dominant/wealthy. And as a result, we accept an explanation of social problems that is based on nonsensical categories and nonexistent relationships.
Of course, it is clear that the moderators are totally in on the game, as the quality of their questions only encourage these prefabricated, thoughtless answers.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Evolution and Social Class
There is one more obvious type of inequality supported by the concept of evolution that I would like to discuss. I think I may be rather brief with my remarks because the connection between evolutionary theory and social class is more well known and can be summed up in two words: Social Darwinism.
Quite simply, Social Darwinism is the idea that class inequalities exist because of natural differences in characteristics such as intelligence and discipline. Thus, class inequalities are right and just, and to attempt to question income disparities is to subvert the natural order by which the strong survive and the weak perish. In fact, some have argued that charity is dangerous as it prevents the "survival of the fittest" mechanism from weeding out the weaker human beings.
Now, of course, Social Darwinism does not follow from the principles of actual Darwinism for multiple reasons (for example, the definition of "fitness" in the Darwinian scheme being more tautologically definied as the ability to survive - i.e. reproduce - and containing no implications about any other sort of "value"). However, this does not mean, as some people suggest, that Social Darwinism is simply a distortion or perversion of a valid scientific concept. For one thing, Social Darwinism is certainly in line with other paradigms of evolution that have held more sway over general consciousness, including among contemporary scientists.
More importantly - and this is the point I would like to emphasize with this post - the Ideology of Progress, of which evolutionary theories are a component, is, at its essence, a mechanism of naturalizing inequalities of all forms and thus upholding the social order. This fact, along with the relationship between evolutionary theory and inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality, all seem to suggest that Social Darwinism is less a distortion of the concept of evolution, and more one specific manifestation of the general inherent nature of evolutionary theory and the Ideology of Progress.
Social Darwinism reveals the true nature of evolutionary theory more than it distorts it.
Quite simply, Social Darwinism is the idea that class inequalities exist because of natural differences in characteristics such as intelligence and discipline. Thus, class inequalities are right and just, and to attempt to question income disparities is to subvert the natural order by which the strong survive and the weak perish. In fact, some have argued that charity is dangerous as it prevents the "survival of the fittest" mechanism from weeding out the weaker human beings.
Now, of course, Social Darwinism does not follow from the principles of actual Darwinism for multiple reasons (for example, the definition of "fitness" in the Darwinian scheme being more tautologically definied as the ability to survive - i.e. reproduce - and containing no implications about any other sort of "value"). However, this does not mean, as some people suggest, that Social Darwinism is simply a distortion or perversion of a valid scientific concept. For one thing, Social Darwinism is certainly in line with other paradigms of evolution that have held more sway over general consciousness, including among contemporary scientists.
More importantly - and this is the point I would like to emphasize with this post - the Ideology of Progress, of which evolutionary theories are a component, is, at its essence, a mechanism of naturalizing inequalities of all forms and thus upholding the social order. This fact, along with the relationship between evolutionary theory and inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality, all seem to suggest that Social Darwinism is less a distortion of the concept of evolution, and more one specific manifestation of the general inherent nature of evolutionary theory and the Ideology of Progress.
Social Darwinism reveals the true nature of evolutionary theory more than it distorts it.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Evolution and Gender
The inequalities and forms of oppression that exist in this world are multiple and varied, yet they are not unrelated. In particular, although people's experiences of marginalization due to race, gender, sexuality, social class, and the like are far from identical (there is even diversity of experience within each of these non-homogenous categories), evolution is the linchpin that holds together all of these forms oppression.
Following from the ideology of white supremacy, the key to the progress and development of the human race is the survival of the white race (the fittest) combined with the natural extinction of all the inferior races. However, for the white race to survive, the white race has to reproduce. One pressing concern among the inherently white supremacist intelligencia of the 19th and early 20th century was that the white population was not reproducing at the same rate as other populations (particularly the black population). Consequently, attempts to limit the reproductive capacity of women of color have continued even to the present. These attempts have included the forced use of potentially dangerous contraceptives. As a side note, it is for this reason that the framing of "reproductive rights" solely in terms of abortion is seen as a specifically white, middle class approach to feminism. For women of color, "reproductive rights" very significantly includes the right to be able to reproduce.
In addition to curbing the reproductive rates of people of color, ensuring the survival of the white race has also entailed the promotion of reproduction among the white population. For this reason, gender (like race, a social construct rather than a biological fact) was redefined in such a way that women were encouraged to stay home and take care of their children. While the social division of labor along gender lines and the subordination of women has more less always existed, historically and geographically women have had economic roles that extended beyond their reproductive capacity.
Related to these reformed gender roles were new attitudes toward sexuality. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" emerged at this time. Within the framework of white supremacy, homosexuality is threatening because of its potential to subvert gender roles and sustain relationships that do not encourage white reproduction.
In this way, modern conceptions of race, gender, and sexuality were constructed at the same time and as part of the same project of white supremacy - itself only an effect of the overarching Ideology of Progress that sustains the social order.
It might seem that I am grasping at straws in order to make these connections among race, gender, and sexuality. However, my arguments are based on solid evidence. The same scientists who were writing about race at the time these ideas emerged were also writing about gender and sexuality, and doing so in almost exactly the same terms as presented above. I am merely repeating a discourse that was quite explicit. In the course of the 20th century, this reasoning may have become muddled and less obvious, but that has only helped to sustain its effects as the concomitant definitions of race, gender, and sexuality have become naturalized as their true raison d'etre becomes more obscured.
For further reading on this topic:
-The Heart of Whiteness: Normal Sexuality and Race in America by Julian Carter
-Sex, Race & Science: Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
-Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
-Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
-Embodying Race: Gender, Sex, and the Sciences of Difference (edited volume)
Following from the ideology of white supremacy, the key to the progress and development of the human race is the survival of the white race (the fittest) combined with the natural extinction of all the inferior races. However, for the white race to survive, the white race has to reproduce. One pressing concern among the inherently white supremacist intelligencia of the 19th and early 20th century was that the white population was not reproducing at the same rate as other populations (particularly the black population). Consequently, attempts to limit the reproductive capacity of women of color have continued even to the present. These attempts have included the forced use of potentially dangerous contraceptives. As a side note, it is for this reason that the framing of "reproductive rights" solely in terms of abortion is seen as a specifically white, middle class approach to feminism. For women of color, "reproductive rights" very significantly includes the right to be able to reproduce.
In addition to curbing the reproductive rates of people of color, ensuring the survival of the white race has also entailed the promotion of reproduction among the white population. For this reason, gender (like race, a social construct rather than a biological fact) was redefined in such a way that women were encouraged to stay home and take care of their children. While the social division of labor along gender lines and the subordination of women has more less always existed, historically and geographically women have had economic roles that extended beyond their reproductive capacity.
Related to these reformed gender roles were new attitudes toward sexuality. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" emerged at this time. Within the framework of white supremacy, homosexuality is threatening because of its potential to subvert gender roles and sustain relationships that do not encourage white reproduction.
In this way, modern conceptions of race, gender, and sexuality were constructed at the same time and as part of the same project of white supremacy - itself only an effect of the overarching Ideology of Progress that sustains the social order.
It might seem that I am grasping at straws in order to make these connections among race, gender, and sexuality. However, my arguments are based on solid evidence. The same scientists who were writing about race at the time these ideas emerged were also writing about gender and sexuality, and doing so in almost exactly the same terms as presented above. I am merely repeating a discourse that was quite explicit. In the course of the 20th century, this reasoning may have become muddled and less obvious, but that has only helped to sustain its effects as the concomitant definitions of race, gender, and sexuality have become naturalized as their true raison d'etre becomes more obscured.
For further reading on this topic:
-The Heart of Whiteness: Normal Sexuality and Race in America by Julian Carter
-Sex, Race & Science: Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
-Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
-Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
-Embodying Race: Gender, Sex, and the Sciences of Difference (edited volume)
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
History of Two Evolutionary Paradigms
Many people are not aware that ideas about evolution were widespread prior to Charles Darwin. In fact, the concept of evolution is the most important building block of the Ideology of Progress.
Before Darwin, evolution was viewed as a teleological process: that is, it was directional, it had an endpoint (human beings). Evolution fit within a Biblical historical framework, in which world history proceeded according to a series of discrete stages, following a divine salvation narrative. In this model of evolution, "more evolved" necessarily meant "better" in an absolute sense.
One of the most controversial aspects of Darwin's writings was not the idea of evolution itself, but the argument that evolution was random and non-directional, driven by arbitrary forces of nature rather than divine plan. According to Darwin, traits that inhibited reproduction in any given environment would gradually die out, while those that did not would survive. This is a fairly tautological statement. Within Darwin's model, any particular organism can only be adapted to a particular environment, and thus cannot be "more evolved" or "better" in any absolute sense, as environmental conditions are constantly changing.
Darwin's conception of evolution drew, in part, on notions of "survival of the fittest" from population studies, although Darwin himself did not use this phrase (it is falsely attributed to him). It should be emphasized, once again, that "fit" only means able to reproduce in a given environment.
However, with the "survival of the fittest" notion in the popular conscious, a hybrid paradigm of evolution emerged that retained characteristics of both Darwinian and pre-Darwinian evolutionary paradigms:
-evolution proceeds according to arbitrary forces of nature rather than divine plan
-yet evolution is teleological: it results in the development of "better" or more "complex" organisms.
Thus, for example, the popular idea that "humans came from monkeys." First, humans are more biologically related to apes than monkeys (there is a big difference). More importantly, any organism that exists today cannot have evolved from another organism that exists contemporaneously, as both would have evolved to the same extent since the time of divergence: thus, it is not possible that humans came from apes, because apes have evolved just as much as humans in the same time period. It would be more consistent with the principles of Darwinian evolution to say that humans and apes share a common ancestor.
Yet, it would be wrong to suppose that the hybrid concept of evolution is merely a popular misunderstanding. This paradigm of evolution has continued to shape the thinking of many esteemed scientists up to the present. It seems that a teleological model of evolution is irresistable, even to those who espouse a contradictory model in principle.
This is a perfect example to demonstrate that scientific thought is more strongly driven by worldview than logical deductions from first principles.
Before Darwin, evolution was viewed as a teleological process: that is, it was directional, it had an endpoint (human beings). Evolution fit within a Biblical historical framework, in which world history proceeded according to a series of discrete stages, following a divine salvation narrative. In this model of evolution, "more evolved" necessarily meant "better" in an absolute sense.
One of the most controversial aspects of Darwin's writings was not the idea of evolution itself, but the argument that evolution was random and non-directional, driven by arbitrary forces of nature rather than divine plan. According to Darwin, traits that inhibited reproduction in any given environment would gradually die out, while those that did not would survive. This is a fairly tautological statement. Within Darwin's model, any particular organism can only be adapted to a particular environment, and thus cannot be "more evolved" or "better" in any absolute sense, as environmental conditions are constantly changing.
Darwin's conception of evolution drew, in part, on notions of "survival of the fittest" from population studies, although Darwin himself did not use this phrase (it is falsely attributed to him). It should be emphasized, once again, that "fit" only means able to reproduce in a given environment.
However, with the "survival of the fittest" notion in the popular conscious, a hybrid paradigm of evolution emerged that retained characteristics of both Darwinian and pre-Darwinian evolutionary paradigms:
-evolution proceeds according to arbitrary forces of nature rather than divine plan
-yet evolution is teleological: it results in the development of "better" or more "complex" organisms.
Thus, for example, the popular idea that "humans came from monkeys." First, humans are more biologically related to apes than monkeys (there is a big difference). More importantly, any organism that exists today cannot have evolved from another organism that exists contemporaneously, as both would have evolved to the same extent since the time of divergence: thus, it is not possible that humans came from apes, because apes have evolved just as much as humans in the same time period. It would be more consistent with the principles of Darwinian evolution to say that humans and apes share a common ancestor.
Yet, it would be wrong to suppose that the hybrid concept of evolution is merely a popular misunderstanding. This paradigm of evolution has continued to shape the thinking of many esteemed scientists up to the present. It seems that a teleological model of evolution is irresistable, even to those who espouse a contradictory model in principle.
This is a perfect example to demonstrate that scientific thought is more strongly driven by worldview than logical deductions from first principles.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Dictatorships and Democracy
I have wanted to touch on recent events in the Middle East/North Africa for some time now, but I almost don't know where to start. Certainly there is a lot of history related to global capitalism and imperialism that contextualizes these events. However, I think I would prefer to start at a more theoretical level and extend my earlier discussion of state power toward a discussion of democracy and dictatorships.
If you don't care to read my earlier posts, here are some key points:
1. There is only one "form of government": oligarchy. If one is referring to control over the means of legitimate state violence and the ability to create and enforce the law, this always (and can only) lie in the hands of a select few. Even in a system of representation, ultimate decision-making abilities are always monopolized by a handful of people.
2. Power is a property of relationships, which extend beyond the state. The state is not a locus or source of power.
3. The state is merely a tool of various (sometimes conflicting) capitalist interests that control the state apparatus.
It follows that there is no fundamental difference between a "democracy" (like the U.S.) and a dictatorship. Clearly, however, there is some difference. Yet, contrary to common perception, it is a difference in degree and not in kind.
In effect, "democracy" is a strategy for managing dissent that is available to nations enjoying a certain amount of wealth and infrastructural (both physical and ideological) development. By allowing people to feel as though their voices are heard and their actions have influence, "democracy" quells frustration with the system at the same time as it channels energy and actions into practices that ultimately support the system, all while creating a smokescreen to cover up the power relations that are really at play. When people are allowed to participate in "fair" elections, lobby their congressional representatives, speak their minds on the radio or in blogs, and criticize the government without fear of retribution, people are less likely to see need for full-scale change in the current social order, even as they are being exploited. They are more likely to believe that things just need to be "tweaked" and reformed; they are more likely to believe that they live in circumstances that, while not perfect, are probably the best they can hope for; they are more likely to believe that the state exists to uphold the common good.
Thus, "democracy" is an excellent means of maintaining the status quo. If everyone could use this tactic, they probably would. Yet, there are significant barriers to the accessibility of this option.
Wealth
Democracy is expensive. Many underdeveloped nations simply cannot afford to set up polling stations, invest in voting equipment, hire election officials, and take all the necessary steps to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the elections that occur in the U.S. (not sure how this compares to other countries) require a HUGE amount of wealth and resources from those who are campaigning and their associated political parties. Additionally, wealth is a requisite for development of the infrastructure that supports "democracy":
Physical infrastructure
This includes what is normally placed under the heading of infrastructure: roads, transportation, communications, public works, etc. It also includes social welfare programs and non-profit organizations (a small investment, far less than what is gained via exploitation, to ensure that people believe democracy is "working for them" and supporting their goals), and most importantly, it includes bureaucracy. There are many ways in which bureaucracies contribute to the illusion of democracy, most notably the fact that if people are able to gain employment through the state or interact on a daily basis with other "ordinary" people who represent the state in this way, the state is more likely to appear "of the people" - more anonymous and diffuse. Bureaucracies also allow agendas to be carried out in more indirect and covert ways. (For example, if certain FDA regulations are designed to support and subsidize particular agricultural industries, it is easy to employ the research of a number of public health officials and scientists to create a faux rationale for the regulation that addresses the "public good": and most of the people involved in the decision and its execution would honestly believe that is the case. Cogs in the wheel don't always know in what direction the wheel is spinning!) Finally, just as wealth supports physical infrastructure, physical infrastructure supports ideological infrastructure.
Ideological infrastructure
Partially, the ideological infrastructure consists of hegemonic ("natural" or "obvious" to the point of being unquestionable) ideas. This may include the concept of "founding principles" of the nation (usually involving freedom/liberty.... essentially meaningless terms if one looks at reality); notions of "nationhood," national unity, land rights, patriotism, loyalty, and citizenship; other ideas derived from social contract ideology - that power is located completely in the government, which, in turn, represents the will of the people; and components of neoliberal ideology - that "government" and "business" are distinct entities, that "capitalist" societies possess free markets, and that anyone can make it if they work hard enough and play by the rules of the system. These hegemonic ideas are cultivated primarily by the educational system (an important piece of physical infrastructure), political rhetoric, and the media, all mutually reinforcing one another. So, for example, to mobilize people to engage in warfare in defense of capitalist interests (which are ultimately antithetical to their own), all one needs to do is invoke discourses of patriotism, nationhood, and liberty. Interesting how every war seems to be about "defending our liberties," right?
Ideological infrastructure also involves "organized disagreement." What better way to create the illusion of "democracy" than to populate all sectors of society with diverging points of view? Thus, in the U.S. we have Republicans and Democrats; we have Fox News and MSNBC; the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; anti-war protests and Tea Party rallies; the Open Society Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And people feel like they have options, that their choice of political leadership will shape the direction of the country, and that they participate in a "free marketplace of ideas." Yet these seemingly diametrically opposed points of view are grounded in the same fundamental assumptions (some of which are the hegemonic ideas described above) that work to uphold the social order. Any points of view which could seriously undermine the status quo are militantly squelched (and that is why Marxism is derided as "radical," "subversive," and "obviously wrong"... it is not as acceptable to be a Marxist in the U.S. as it is to be a Democrat or Republican, and it was not even legal to be a communist at certain points in our history.) People like to think it makes a differences whether they elect a Democrat or a Republican, but in reality there have been more significant changes in policy within presidential administrations than between them. For example, Reagonomics was implemented at the end of Carter's term, and Reagan himself, several years into his own tenure, took up a military Keynesianism which has continued to the present, through both Democratic and Republican adminstrations.
Therefore, in neither dictatorships nor democracies do people have the power. All states take actions to curtail civil liberties when they face some sort of "threat" to their legitimacy. The big difference is that states with more robust infrastucture do not feel as threatened as often and consequently are able to limit these actions compared to the classic dictatorship. And since infrastructure requires wealth, it is no coincidence that dictatorships are most common in the poorest countries in the world (in addition to the fact that starving people are less likely to be pacified by appeals to "liberty" and "patriotism"). Certainly, it is more comfortable to live under a "democracy" than a dictatorship, even if one has no real power, but that is just one of the many advantages of living in conditions of great wealth.
What, then, of this notion of a "power vacuum"? In truth, it is an infrastructural vacuum. Dictatorships are most likely to emerge out of infrastructural ruins: for example, that which is caused by war. (No coicidence, then, that Hitler appeared in the ravages caused by WW1....).
And what does this mean for the MENA unrest? Subject of my next post.
If you don't care to read my earlier posts, here are some key points:
1. There is only one "form of government": oligarchy. If one is referring to control over the means of legitimate state violence and the ability to create and enforce the law, this always (and can only) lie in the hands of a select few. Even in a system of representation, ultimate decision-making abilities are always monopolized by a handful of people.
2. Power is a property of relationships, which extend beyond the state. The state is not a locus or source of power.
3. The state is merely a tool of various (sometimes conflicting) capitalist interests that control the state apparatus.
It follows that there is no fundamental difference between a "democracy" (like the U.S.) and a dictatorship. Clearly, however, there is some difference. Yet, contrary to common perception, it is a difference in degree and not in kind.
In effect, "democracy" is a strategy for managing dissent that is available to nations enjoying a certain amount of wealth and infrastructural (both physical and ideological) development. By allowing people to feel as though their voices are heard and their actions have influence, "democracy" quells frustration with the system at the same time as it channels energy and actions into practices that ultimately support the system, all while creating a smokescreen to cover up the power relations that are really at play. When people are allowed to participate in "fair" elections, lobby their congressional representatives, speak their minds on the radio or in blogs, and criticize the government without fear of retribution, people are less likely to see need for full-scale change in the current social order, even as they are being exploited. They are more likely to believe that things just need to be "tweaked" and reformed; they are more likely to believe that they live in circumstances that, while not perfect, are probably the best they can hope for; they are more likely to believe that the state exists to uphold the common good.
Thus, "democracy" is an excellent means of maintaining the status quo. If everyone could use this tactic, they probably would. Yet, there are significant barriers to the accessibility of this option.
Wealth
Democracy is expensive. Many underdeveloped nations simply cannot afford to set up polling stations, invest in voting equipment, hire election officials, and take all the necessary steps to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the elections that occur in the U.S. (not sure how this compares to other countries) require a HUGE amount of wealth and resources from those who are campaigning and their associated political parties. Additionally, wealth is a requisite for development of the infrastructure that supports "democracy":
Physical infrastructure
This includes what is normally placed under the heading of infrastructure: roads, transportation, communications, public works, etc. It also includes social welfare programs and non-profit organizations (a small investment, far less than what is gained via exploitation, to ensure that people believe democracy is "working for them" and supporting their goals), and most importantly, it includes bureaucracy. There are many ways in which bureaucracies contribute to the illusion of democracy, most notably the fact that if people are able to gain employment through the state or interact on a daily basis with other "ordinary" people who represent the state in this way, the state is more likely to appear "of the people" - more anonymous and diffuse. Bureaucracies also allow agendas to be carried out in more indirect and covert ways. (For example, if certain FDA regulations are designed to support and subsidize particular agricultural industries, it is easy to employ the research of a number of public health officials and scientists to create a faux rationale for the regulation that addresses the "public good": and most of the people involved in the decision and its execution would honestly believe that is the case. Cogs in the wheel don't always know in what direction the wheel is spinning!) Finally, just as wealth supports physical infrastructure, physical infrastructure supports ideological infrastructure.
Ideological infrastructure
Partially, the ideological infrastructure consists of hegemonic ("natural" or "obvious" to the point of being unquestionable) ideas. This may include the concept of "founding principles" of the nation (usually involving freedom/liberty.... essentially meaningless terms if one looks at reality); notions of "nationhood," national unity, land rights, patriotism, loyalty, and citizenship; other ideas derived from social contract ideology - that power is located completely in the government, which, in turn, represents the will of the people; and components of neoliberal ideology - that "government" and "business" are distinct entities, that "capitalist" societies possess free markets, and that anyone can make it if they work hard enough and play by the rules of the system. These hegemonic ideas are cultivated primarily by the educational system (an important piece of physical infrastructure), political rhetoric, and the media, all mutually reinforcing one another. So, for example, to mobilize people to engage in warfare in defense of capitalist interests (which are ultimately antithetical to their own), all one needs to do is invoke discourses of patriotism, nationhood, and liberty. Interesting how every war seems to be about "defending our liberties," right?
Ideological infrastructure also involves "organized disagreement." What better way to create the illusion of "democracy" than to populate all sectors of society with diverging points of view? Thus, in the U.S. we have Republicans and Democrats; we have Fox News and MSNBC; the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; anti-war protests and Tea Party rallies; the Open Society Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And people feel like they have options, that their choice of political leadership will shape the direction of the country, and that they participate in a "free marketplace of ideas." Yet these seemingly diametrically opposed points of view are grounded in the same fundamental assumptions (some of which are the hegemonic ideas described above) that work to uphold the social order. Any points of view which could seriously undermine the status quo are militantly squelched (and that is why Marxism is derided as "radical," "subversive," and "obviously wrong"... it is not as acceptable to be a Marxist in the U.S. as it is to be a Democrat or Republican, and it was not even legal to be a communist at certain points in our history.) People like to think it makes a differences whether they elect a Democrat or a Republican, but in reality there have been more significant changes in policy within presidential administrations than between them. For example, Reagonomics was implemented at the end of Carter's term, and Reagan himself, several years into his own tenure, took up a military Keynesianism which has continued to the present, through both Democratic and Republican adminstrations.
Therefore, in neither dictatorships nor democracies do people have the power. All states take actions to curtail civil liberties when they face some sort of "threat" to their legitimacy. The big difference is that states with more robust infrastucture do not feel as threatened as often and consequently are able to limit these actions compared to the classic dictatorship. And since infrastructure requires wealth, it is no coincidence that dictatorships are most common in the poorest countries in the world (in addition to the fact that starving people are less likely to be pacified by appeals to "liberty" and "patriotism"). Certainly, it is more comfortable to live under a "democracy" than a dictatorship, even if one has no real power, but that is just one of the many advantages of living in conditions of great wealth.
What, then, of this notion of a "power vacuum"? In truth, it is an infrastructural vacuum. Dictatorships are most likely to emerge out of infrastructural ruins: for example, that which is caused by war. (No coicidence, then, that Hitler appeared in the ravages caused by WW1....).
And what does this mean for the MENA unrest? Subject of my next post.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Summary
Now that I have set out most of the main premises of my Marxist worldview, which I will be elaborating in future posts, probably with more attention to specific current events, I thought it would be a good idea to summarize the ideas I have presented so far before moving on.
- Accumulation of wealth, in general, occurs through relationships of exploitation and the limitation of competition (often via use of state mechanisms). Accumulation of wealth is always a redistribution of wealth, and as such, it strains the very system by which it occurs, rendering it unsustainable for any particular individual or corporation in the long run.
- Power is not a "thing" that one "has" but a characteristic of relationships (acting upon another's actions). Most forms of power are decentralized and present in any type of social relationship. Sovereignty is a more centralized form of power that adheres between an institution wielding legitimate use of violence and enforcement of law, and those upon whom the legitimate violence and rule of law are exercised. Nominally, the former is "the state," although the state is actually a tool employed by the dominant groups of society.
- The primary defining characteristic of capitalism is wage labor.
- Wage labor allows for large-scale organization of production and investment in technology that creates "economies of scale."
- When production occurs at such a large scale and is simultaneously oriented only toward profit-making goals rather than the actual societal need, over-production is the inevitable result.
- To overcome crises of over-production, capitalists must create demand (results: excessive marketing and advertising, constantly outmoded technology and outdated fashions, a consumerist lifestyle, state deficit spending, extension of credit, increasing public and personal debt).
- However, the ultimate result of over-production is decreasing profitability of the manufacturing sector and economic stagnation, as well as waste on a large scale.
- For example, as we have all seen, U.S. deficit spending and the stock-market and housing bubbles created by extension of credit were not ultimately able to overcome the global crisis of over-production and economic stagnation that emerged in the late 1960s. It only postponed the inevitable and made the fall much more drastic.
- Since the late 1960s, any period of economic growth in one country has been accomplished primarily through the manipulation of exchange rates and other monetary policy (rather than resolving the global crisis of over-production) and, thus, has occurred directly at the expense of all the others.
- Under capitalism, the condition of wage labor constituting the basis of value provides a point of intersection between sovereign power (self-interested, territorial, focused on wealth and resources) and governmental power (oriented toward the management and cultivation of the life, productivity, and health of populations). Governmental power relationships have greatly expanded, encompassing more areas of life, and have been appropriated to a limited degree by the state. Simultaneously, life itself has come to constitute a basis of sovereignty, whereas previously people were only encountered as objects of secondary importance to territory and resources.
- Thus, under capitalism, life itself has become a grounds of political struggle and power. (For example, the issue of abortion and defining when life begins.)
- The profitability of capitalist enterprise requires cheap inputs.
- This was initially provided by the emergence of a class of landless, unemployed peasants (dispossessed of their land) whose labor could be exploited. This was followed by the large-scale use of slave labor in the American colonies.
- Later, capitalists were forced to turn their attention toward procuring cheaper raw materials. This was achieved via colonization of the rest of the world where these resources were located.
- More recently, there has been a swing back toward the pursuit of cheap labor, as well as cheap "light" manufactured goods as inputs for more "value-added" industry. This is accomplished by using "neocolonial" relationships of exploitation to open the markets of formerly colonized nations to multi-national corporations. This also serves the purpose of creating additional markets for commodities in the face of global over-production.
- These are the relationships of exploitation that characterize capitalist accumulation of wealth.
- The end result is an increasing gap between the wealthiest nations and the poorest.
- These realities are concealed from popular awareness by a number of ideologies that uphold the social order.
- Social contract ideology promotes the belief that states have a power of their own, apart from dominant groups, and by consent of all the citizens. In so far as states are seen as the real locus of power, rather than dominant groups, all attempts to limit or combat power are errantly directed at the state, such as trying to "reduce the size of government."
- Social contract ideology also encourages people to view economies as nationally bounded, and to assume that state policies (or lack thereof) are the root cause of economic growth and recession. Thus, economic crises are not seen as resulting from inherent flaws in a global system, but as something which can be "fixed" and permanently avoided through the proper state action (or inaction, depending on one's perspective).
- Neoliberal ideology supports the belief that the system is fair, the playing field is level, and any inequalities result from "natural" inadequacies and moral deficiencies. Thus, poverty is accepted as the just due of the unworthy. It is not the consequence of exploitation or an inherently unjust system.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Neoliberal Ideology
Just as the ideology of Progress has been absolutely vital to the development of current power structures, its highly successful offspring, neoliberal ideology, is crucial to the maintenance of systemic inequality.
Neoliberal ideology is a "survival of the fittest" perspective that upholds competition and individualism as the engine of Progress. According to this ideology, wealth is the result of harder work, higher intelligence, and superior techniques, and, as such, is in some way a measure of a person's worth as a human being. Competition ensures Progress by weeding out the "unworthy" and incentivizing beneficial behaviors by giving them their just due.
Neoliberalism is perhaps so successful because it has found fertile ground in multiple domains, particularly in various sciences (giving it the appearance of a "natural law"). For example, some of the earliest evidence of neoliberalism (or, at that time, just "liberalism") is apparent in the field of demography with the concept of "survival of the fittest." At the same time, analogies were made between the domains of economics, population studies, and biology, ultimately leading to Social Darwinism in economics (classical economics itself being pervaded by neoliberal ideology), and Darwinian evolutionary theory. The latter, for its part, was from the very beginning associated with racism and the eugenics movement. The first European eugenics society was spearheaded by Darwin's compadres. All of these schools of thought and social movements are examples of neoliberal ideology because they are premised on the idea that the "unfittest" of the human race should not be given a helping hand, lest they get in the way of Progress, which demands that they wither away and leave only the strong to survive.
(Although I am no ardent Darwin fan, I would be remiss if I did not note: Darwin himself did not espouse a "survival of the fittest" paradigm. He put forward more of a tautological observation that the effect of a particular trait on reproductive success, if any, and according to given environmental conditions, which are always subject to change, determines its prevalence within a population. Thus, if something is "fit," it is only fit for the particular conditions that exist now, and not in general; and it is "fit" only in terms of reproduction.)
It is clear how neoliberal ideology legitimates the social order. It is used to create the illusion of an equal playing field while diverting attention away from exploitation and enduring structures of inequality. Inequality is perceived to result from "natural" differences in ability, intelligence, work ethic, etc. Consequently, the poor are held responsible for their poverty and the rich are venerated for their success - for wealth is a measure of one's moral character.
Additionally, neoliberalism seeks to channel movements for social reform into strategies based on competition, market participation, private/individual initiative and the use of inequalities to create incentives: processes that exacerbate existing inequalities by more fully entrenching the poor and oppressed in the exploitative relationships that structure the "free" market. Any reform movement that seriously challenges the status quo, such as redistribution of wealth, is seen as an egregious crime against nature.
Finally, neoliberal ideology, by insisting that our current economic system is based on free market enterprise (when, in fact, it has limited the freedom of markets), allows capitalism to be defined in such a way that everything desirable is encompassed by the definition (freedom, technology, efficiency) while the pitfalls and limitations (waste, debt, instability, monopolies, exploitation) of capitalism are, not only excluded, but construed as either internal "malfunctions" (the result of rogue individuals not playing by the rules; e.g. those idiots on Wall Street who created the current financial crisis) or as external rivals pitted against the capitalist system. Every negative aspect of capitalism in its essence is portrayed as a perversion of capitalism or its antithesis.
In sum, neoliberal ideology looks at structures of exploitation and oppression and insists it is watching a fair game conducted on an even playing field.
Neoliberal ideology is a "survival of the fittest" perspective that upholds competition and individualism as the engine of Progress. According to this ideology, wealth is the result of harder work, higher intelligence, and superior techniques, and, as such, is in some way a measure of a person's worth as a human being. Competition ensures Progress by weeding out the "unworthy" and incentivizing beneficial behaviors by giving them their just due.
Neoliberalism is perhaps so successful because it has found fertile ground in multiple domains, particularly in various sciences (giving it the appearance of a "natural law"). For example, some of the earliest evidence of neoliberalism (or, at that time, just "liberalism") is apparent in the field of demography with the concept of "survival of the fittest." At the same time, analogies were made between the domains of economics, population studies, and biology, ultimately leading to Social Darwinism in economics (classical economics itself being pervaded by neoliberal ideology), and Darwinian evolutionary theory. The latter, for its part, was from the very beginning associated with racism and the eugenics movement. The first European eugenics society was spearheaded by Darwin's compadres. All of these schools of thought and social movements are examples of neoliberal ideology because they are premised on the idea that the "unfittest" of the human race should not be given a helping hand, lest they get in the way of Progress, which demands that they wither away and leave only the strong to survive.
(Although I am no ardent Darwin fan, I would be remiss if I did not note: Darwin himself did not espouse a "survival of the fittest" paradigm. He put forward more of a tautological observation that the effect of a particular trait on reproductive success, if any, and according to given environmental conditions, which are always subject to change, determines its prevalence within a population. Thus, if something is "fit," it is only fit for the particular conditions that exist now, and not in general; and it is "fit" only in terms of reproduction.)
It is clear how neoliberal ideology legitimates the social order. It is used to create the illusion of an equal playing field while diverting attention away from exploitation and enduring structures of inequality. Inequality is perceived to result from "natural" differences in ability, intelligence, work ethic, etc. Consequently, the poor are held responsible for their poverty and the rich are venerated for their success - for wealth is a measure of one's moral character.
Additionally, neoliberalism seeks to channel movements for social reform into strategies based on competition, market participation, private/individual initiative and the use of inequalities to create incentives: processes that exacerbate existing inequalities by more fully entrenching the poor and oppressed in the exploitative relationships that structure the "free" market. Any reform movement that seriously challenges the status quo, such as redistribution of wealth, is seen as an egregious crime against nature.
Finally, neoliberal ideology, by insisting that our current economic system is based on free market enterprise (when, in fact, it has limited the freedom of markets), allows capitalism to be defined in such a way that everything desirable is encompassed by the definition (freedom, technology, efficiency) while the pitfalls and limitations (waste, debt, instability, monopolies, exploitation) of capitalism are, not only excluded, but construed as either internal "malfunctions" (the result of rogue individuals not playing by the rules; e.g. those idiots on Wall Street who created the current financial crisis) or as external rivals pitted against the capitalist system. Every negative aspect of capitalism in its essence is portrayed as a perversion of capitalism or its antithesis.
In sum, neoliberal ideology looks at structures of exploitation and oppression and insists it is watching a fair game conducted on an even playing field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)