Marketing is the key to understanding modern power relations. (To view previous posts about the nature of power, click here and here, for starters.) To summarize: power is a property of relationships, not an entity that can be possessed by an individual, and it is a property of all relationships, not concentrated in or originating from any single institution, such as a state. It is characterized by an ability to act on other people’s actions, for the purpose of repressing or promoting behaviors, and may be distinguished from total domination in that both parties must be free to act. In the modern world, power often works by penetrating consciousness and creating/shaping identities. The old maxim that “knowledge is power” is not only true because knowledge affects one’s ability to act, but also because the production of knowledge about certain populations simultaneously defines who they are.
One of the most salient domains in which identities are created, shaped, and cemented is marketing. We are now bombarded by advertisements. They absolutely saturate our consciousness. On the radio, on television, plastered all over buses and buildings, in our inboxes, on the internet.... the number of advertisements that we encounter on a daily basis is unfathomable. Due to the very extent of its presence in our consciousness, marketing possesses an unparalleled capacity to affect that conscious.
I have learned quite a bit about marketing from my job. It is no secret that the most fundamental principle of marketing is that its end goal is to manipulate people’s behavior. It is not to provide information about a product. For example, an email campaign will be considered successful if it compels people to click on a link; it need not include any information about what is being promoted. The science of marketing is the art of inducing behaviors.
One of the basic ways that this is achieved is through the creation and reinforcement of particular identities. It is more than just “knowing your audience.” Marketing creates the audience. Generally, to achieve maximum success, the market is broken into a number of segments that align with categories of race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. Then, the marketers determine what their targeted segment desires, in order that they can use those desires to manipulate behavior. (In this sense, one can view political campaigning as a subset of marketing.)
However, marketers don’t merely tap into the pre-existing desires of clearly defined, homogenous groups. Through the use of particular images and the placement of ads in particular contexts, new associations are made and old associations are reinforced. It is these associations themselves that define both the categories and the desires simultaneously. For example, a whole network of interlinked cultural artifacts marks sports as a masculine domain; the commercials that a man sees during a game will both reinforce the idea that "men" (aged 20-40?) are the primary audience, while also elaborating the behaviors and desires that typify masculinity (drinking beer, objectifying women, etc.)
Then there is the less visible side of marketing – the one most intimately involved in the production of knowledge. This is the side of marketing that has been receiving the most critical attention lately, and the side that has shed light on the intersections of technology and privacy in the modern world. Obviously I am referring to the collection, sharing, and selling of personal data. This is governmentality extraordinaire (if only Michele Foucault were alive to witness the development of trends of which his later work portended). Data. Data is the lifeblood of modern power relations. The technological means of culling personal data have become outright Orwellian. Every little move you make: every time you use your cell phone or your credit card or do anything on the internet, information is being recorded about your location and actions. Of course, what Orwell could not predict (see my post about 1984) was that such surveillance does not have to be conducted by a state. We have been too busy fearing the government to realize who/what is really capable of infringing on our privacy.
We tend to think of marketing as a relatively benign practice. Or, at worst, perhaps slightly dishonest and maybe promoting unhealthy behaviors. Yet, the most insidious aspect of marketing is its omnipresence and its hegemony in the most intimate areas of our lives. It surveys (often in the other sense as well), records, and tracks. It concerns itself with our habits and desires. It shapes identities. It monitors what we do in order to tell us who we are and what we want (in order to influence what we do).
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The State and Science are Tools of Capitalism
I have argued quite a few times now that, in order to launch a full-scale attack on capitalism, one must include all interrelated structures of the modern world. This is an important point, and commonly neglected, as many Marxists continue to look for solutions in the state, socialism, or even a type of socialist world government.
The state is, at its most basic level, a means of violence, which, via ideological manipulations, is construed as somehow "legitimate," even necessary. Usually this legitimacy is derived from social contract ideology, which posits that a certain degree of coersion is necessary to maintain social order. Despite the fact that there is evidence to the contrary (and in fact, state violence often exacerbates violence of all kinds), this "fact" is rarely questioned. But more than that, the modern state is a tool of the capitalist class, and is therefore a weapon of violence inflicted upon the masses by the ruling elite.
As an arm of the state, the justice system is one of the primary means by which this violence occurs. In addition to capital punishment and all the manifold forms of violence employed on a daily basis by the police (witness, for example, the response to the "Occupy" protests), there is also the gigantic prison-industrial complex, which also serves as a playground for capitalist interests with a sadistic bent. The term "justice system" is an oxymoron, as the system is inherently unjust and inherently violent. Once again, this truth is cloaked behind ideological rhetoric and popular imagery: notions of "human rights," for example (of which it is supposedly the duty of the law to uphold), layers of bureaucratic procedure, and the persona of the lawyer, who grounds the integrity of the justice system in the infallibility of human logic and reason.
Capitalist interests use state violence to uphold the limits to competition that are requisite for profitability (for example, regulation of the labor market), and to maintain neocolonial control over other nations (or in the case of underdeveloped nations, to resist neocolonial control to the benefit of local bourgeoisie). It has even been argued that the prison system functions essentially as a sort of "plantation" on which young African American males once again find themselves providing free labor. (The primary lesson here is that progress is an illusion: if you try to abolish something, they will find another way to reconstruct it. This is why comprehensive systemic transformation is necessary.)
Of course, capitalists have expanded the role of the state to include other functions as well. First and foremost, it is used to ensure the general conditions necessary for the existence capitalism. Maintaining the limits to competition (by patroling borders, regulating citizenship, enforcing copyrights, creating regional disparaties via monetary policy, etc.) falls under this umbrella. So does the protection of property rights, and the provision of infrastructure. It has also become increasingly important to diffuse (subsidize) the costs of labor and investment (including research and development): the latter, in particular, has been growing at an unmanageable rate, such that it now requires a LOT of capital to start and maintain an enterprise, making it both difficult and exceedingly risky.
There is an illusion that the state provides a social safety net. Don't be fooled. Partially, the "safety net" is a means of subsidizing the costs of labor (i.e. the state pays for certain things in lieu of the employer, thus forcing the working population to contribute). When this is not the case, it is a means of pacifying and controlling labor. Certain concessions are made to suppress discontent and unrest, to make the workers more or less agreeable to the conditions of their oppression. People who would actively change the system are encouraged to work in state agencies, subtly maintaining the status quo and all the while believing they are "making a difference." Furthermore, state agencies, in concert with their partners in crime - the nonprofit sector and institutions of medical and social science - collect copious amounts of personal information ("data") and work tirelessly to manage the populations under their jurisdiction: to quell unrest; to homogenize and induce "desired" behaviors (often through educational campaigns and strategic use of the law); and, in a contrary move, to reinforce social categories (every survey inquires about race and gender) and maintain the social division of labor based thereupon.
Which is a perfect lead in to a discussion of how science fits into the picture. Science is not neutral. It is not a matter of "truth." It is not independent of the state, capitalism, or human social relationships in general. In fact, the institutional development of modern science occurred, not in a void, but amid a shifting world order in which the authority and role of different institutions (religious, political, economic) were being redefined in relation to one another. As such, science is an indispensible component of the capitalist world system that eventually emerged. For a number of reasons, including:
1) Historically, science has been instrumentally involved in the social construction of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality... all that comprises the social division of labor which is necessary for capitalism. Even seemingly "neutral" scientific ideas (such as Linnean classification) have been fundamentally shaped by these cultural assumptions.
2) Science is the ground on which "nature" is defined (and redefined). I plan to elaborate in future posts, but the concept of "nature" (not a universal concept, and not equivalent to the concept of "reality") helped constitute a new terrain on which the authority and power structures intrinsic to the modern world system are premised. The idea of "human nature" and "man in a state of nature" provides a rationale for the authority of the modern state; social contract ideology, after all, is the chief legitimizing rhetoric of the secular state. With the concept of "nature" comes a new perspective on what it means to be "human," and therefore what can be protected by the state and, conversely (and more importantly), subject to its violence. To be fully human, one must be cut free from other social relations (which are relegated to secondary importance) and be constituted in one's primary being as a citizen of a particular nation-state, thus creating the atomized, calculating individual who can function as a consumer and wage laborer within the capitalist mode of production.
The concept of "nature" is also an important component in the construction of what is "normal." "Natural" and "normal" function together to judge, act upon, and limit certain types of behavior. They define the "deviant" and "pathological" and provide ground for managing such illicit behavior. Scientific rhetoric has undergirded appraisals of sexual preferences, bodily functioning and appearance, illegal and destructive actions, and nonconformity in general. Thanks to scientific definitions of "nature," when one contravenes social norms, one's essence as a human being is called into question (thus priming one to be a recipient of state-sponsored or condoned violence).
The driving goal of many social and biological sciences has been the decisive disentanglement of the "natural" from the "cultural": the determination of what separates humans from animals. This is not merely an intellectual exercise. It is an ongoing political necessity.
3) There is no clear, distinct boundary between science and industry, and there never has been. Without the technologies that result from the practices of science, capitalism would not be possible. Technological innovation is a necessary component of the capitalist system. I would also be willing to guarantee that the money for "research and development" follows lines of political and economic interest (i.e. military technology). In that vein it is important to note that, not only is technology a double-edged sword (a lot of bad comes with the good: pollution, weapons of mass destruction, undesirable prolongation of life, car and machine-related accidents, assembly line drudgery, etc.), but as new technologies proliferate, the requirements for existence become increasingly more expensive (making it that much more difficult for many to survive - just witness the ballooning costs of healthcare) and technological benefits become concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Most people in the world cannot enjoy new technologies; in fact, their own poverty increases as a direct result of the system it sustains. In that sense, one should really question whether technology represents "progress."
4) Scientific practices, know-how, and technology are also indispensable for (in fact, form the crux of) the operation of governmental power. Demography and statistics allow for the management of populations, as well as the reinforcement of social categories and ideologies. Technological developments enable more effective surveillance techniques (it is now a contentious issue whether police should be able to use GPS tracking without a search warrant, for example). Personal information disclosed over the internet (I'm looking at you, facebook) is used by corporations for marketing purposes. Twitter and google have been used to track the spread of epidemics.
In addition, representatives of sociology and psychology have found their way into pretty much every institution in the modern world: business (marketing, human resources, and training); criminal justice and law in general; religion; education, the family, and the entire child care industry; public health; military, intelligence, and defense; department of state and economic development agencies; social work; urban planning; and the list goes on... (and includes all the nonprofit organizations dedicated to these and other causes). Psychology, in particular, is the modus operandi of governmental power, in its attempt to use universal, objective laws to penetrate and shape individual subjectivity.
What implications do I think should be drawn from all of this? 1. No authority should be beyond questioning or criticism; 2. Nothing is sacred; 3. The roots of the current world system run deep and wide; and 4. Nothing short of complete systemic transformation will solve the real problems of injustice, inequality, and exploitation.
The state is, at its most basic level, a means of violence, which, via ideological manipulations, is construed as somehow "legitimate," even necessary. Usually this legitimacy is derived from social contract ideology, which posits that a certain degree of coersion is necessary to maintain social order. Despite the fact that there is evidence to the contrary (and in fact, state violence often exacerbates violence of all kinds), this "fact" is rarely questioned. But more than that, the modern state is a tool of the capitalist class, and is therefore a weapon of violence inflicted upon the masses by the ruling elite.
As an arm of the state, the justice system is one of the primary means by which this violence occurs. In addition to capital punishment and all the manifold forms of violence employed on a daily basis by the police (witness, for example, the response to the "Occupy" protests), there is also the gigantic prison-industrial complex, which also serves as a playground for capitalist interests with a sadistic bent. The term "justice system" is an oxymoron, as the system is inherently unjust and inherently violent. Once again, this truth is cloaked behind ideological rhetoric and popular imagery: notions of "human rights," for example (of which it is supposedly the duty of the law to uphold), layers of bureaucratic procedure, and the persona of the lawyer, who grounds the integrity of the justice system in the infallibility of human logic and reason.
Capitalist interests use state violence to uphold the limits to competition that are requisite for profitability (for example, regulation of the labor market), and to maintain neocolonial control over other nations (or in the case of underdeveloped nations, to resist neocolonial control to the benefit of local bourgeoisie). It has even been argued that the prison system functions essentially as a sort of "plantation" on which young African American males once again find themselves providing free labor. (The primary lesson here is that progress is an illusion: if you try to abolish something, they will find another way to reconstruct it. This is why comprehensive systemic transformation is necessary.)
Of course, capitalists have expanded the role of the state to include other functions as well. First and foremost, it is used to ensure the general conditions necessary for the existence capitalism. Maintaining the limits to competition (by patroling borders, regulating citizenship, enforcing copyrights, creating regional disparaties via monetary policy, etc.) falls under this umbrella. So does the protection of property rights, and the provision of infrastructure. It has also become increasingly important to diffuse (subsidize) the costs of labor and investment (including research and development): the latter, in particular, has been growing at an unmanageable rate, such that it now requires a LOT of capital to start and maintain an enterprise, making it both difficult and exceedingly risky.
There is an illusion that the state provides a social safety net. Don't be fooled. Partially, the "safety net" is a means of subsidizing the costs of labor (i.e. the state pays for certain things in lieu of the employer, thus forcing the working population to contribute). When this is not the case, it is a means of pacifying and controlling labor. Certain concessions are made to suppress discontent and unrest, to make the workers more or less agreeable to the conditions of their oppression. People who would actively change the system are encouraged to work in state agencies, subtly maintaining the status quo and all the while believing they are "making a difference." Furthermore, state agencies, in concert with their partners in crime - the nonprofit sector and institutions of medical and social science - collect copious amounts of personal information ("data") and work tirelessly to manage the populations under their jurisdiction: to quell unrest; to homogenize and induce "desired" behaviors (often through educational campaigns and strategic use of the law); and, in a contrary move, to reinforce social categories (every survey inquires about race and gender) and maintain the social division of labor based thereupon.
Which is a perfect lead in to a discussion of how science fits into the picture. Science is not neutral. It is not a matter of "truth." It is not independent of the state, capitalism, or human social relationships in general. In fact, the institutional development of modern science occurred, not in a void, but amid a shifting world order in which the authority and role of different institutions (religious, political, economic) were being redefined in relation to one another. As such, science is an indispensible component of the capitalist world system that eventually emerged. For a number of reasons, including:
1) Historically, science has been instrumentally involved in the social construction of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality... all that comprises the social division of labor which is necessary for capitalism. Even seemingly "neutral" scientific ideas (such as Linnean classification) have been fundamentally shaped by these cultural assumptions.
2) Science is the ground on which "nature" is defined (and redefined). I plan to elaborate in future posts, but the concept of "nature" (not a universal concept, and not equivalent to the concept of "reality") helped constitute a new terrain on which the authority and power structures intrinsic to the modern world system are premised. The idea of "human nature" and "man in a state of nature" provides a rationale for the authority of the modern state; social contract ideology, after all, is the chief legitimizing rhetoric of the secular state. With the concept of "nature" comes a new perspective on what it means to be "human," and therefore what can be protected by the state and, conversely (and more importantly), subject to its violence. To be fully human, one must be cut free from other social relations (which are relegated to secondary importance) and be constituted in one's primary being as a citizen of a particular nation-state, thus creating the atomized, calculating individual who can function as a consumer and wage laborer within the capitalist mode of production.
The concept of "nature" is also an important component in the construction of what is "normal." "Natural" and "normal" function together to judge, act upon, and limit certain types of behavior. They define the "deviant" and "pathological" and provide ground for managing such illicit behavior. Scientific rhetoric has undergirded appraisals of sexual preferences, bodily functioning and appearance, illegal and destructive actions, and nonconformity in general. Thanks to scientific definitions of "nature," when one contravenes social norms, one's essence as a human being is called into question (thus priming one to be a recipient of state-sponsored or condoned violence).
The driving goal of many social and biological sciences has been the decisive disentanglement of the "natural" from the "cultural": the determination of what separates humans from animals. This is not merely an intellectual exercise. It is an ongoing political necessity.
3) There is no clear, distinct boundary between science and industry, and there never has been. Without the technologies that result from the practices of science, capitalism would not be possible. Technological innovation is a necessary component of the capitalist system. I would also be willing to guarantee that the money for "research and development" follows lines of political and economic interest (i.e. military technology). In that vein it is important to note that, not only is technology a double-edged sword (a lot of bad comes with the good: pollution, weapons of mass destruction, undesirable prolongation of life, car and machine-related accidents, assembly line drudgery, etc.), but as new technologies proliferate, the requirements for existence become increasingly more expensive (making it that much more difficult for many to survive - just witness the ballooning costs of healthcare) and technological benefits become concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Most people in the world cannot enjoy new technologies; in fact, their own poverty increases as a direct result of the system it sustains. In that sense, one should really question whether technology represents "progress."
4) Scientific practices, know-how, and technology are also indispensable for (in fact, form the crux of) the operation of governmental power. Demography and statistics allow for the management of populations, as well as the reinforcement of social categories and ideologies. Technological developments enable more effective surveillance techniques (it is now a contentious issue whether police should be able to use GPS tracking without a search warrant, for example). Personal information disclosed over the internet (I'm looking at you, facebook) is used by corporations for marketing purposes. Twitter and google have been used to track the spread of epidemics.
In addition, representatives of sociology and psychology have found their way into pretty much every institution in the modern world: business (marketing, human resources, and training); criminal justice and law in general; religion; education, the family, and the entire child care industry; public health; military, intelligence, and defense; department of state and economic development agencies; social work; urban planning; and the list goes on... (and includes all the nonprofit organizations dedicated to these and other causes). Psychology, in particular, is the modus operandi of governmental power, in its attempt to use universal, objective laws to penetrate and shape individual subjectivity.
What implications do I think should be drawn from all of this? 1. No authority should be beyond questioning or criticism; 2. Nothing is sacred; 3. The roots of the current world system run deep and wide; and 4. Nothing short of complete systemic transformation will solve the real problems of injustice, inequality, and exploitation.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Corporations and Banks are Big Brother
In my post about George Orwell's 1984, I commented that one weakness of the work is its supposition that power is centralized in the state. I argued, to the contrary, that power is more diffuse, and that a group of corporations has become our Big Brother. I must now include banks along with corporations, and I have a story to back up my claim. A relative of mine was asked a number of security questions by his bank (with which I am completely unaffiliated) in order to verify his identity. He was surprised by all of the questions, as he could not figure out how the bank was in possession of this information. One, in particular, shocked me: they asked him in which state I reside. Not only does the bank know we are related (which is not a given), but it also has personal information about me. Needless to say, I am pretty creeped out. We joked that the bank probably got its information from Mark Zuckerberg (the CEO of facebook). It is known, after all, that facebook sells people's information to corporations.
Don't worry about the size of government. Worry about the size of the "private sector"!
Don't worry about the size of government. Worry about the size of the "private sector"!
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Personality and Power
Today I was at a seminar in which the instructor discussed the "four personality types." There are many variations on the four personality types, though they are pretty much all the same. My instructor claimed that the idea came from the ancient Greeks, although this is patently false. The concept of "personality," as we understand it today, did not exist at that time and place. Our concept of "personality" is, in fact, a product of the modern social order, and more specifically, it is a prime mechanism of governmental power. I described in a previous post how "government" is a form of power that seeks to nurture, manage and produce - to enhance life, health, happiness, and efficiency.
The concept of governmental power (aka "governmentality") was introduced by the French philosopher/sociologist Michel Foucault. Foucault argued that government employs two contradictory modes of operation: it abstracts and manages humans as populations at the same time as it acts by penetrating individual consciousness and creating personal "essences." This is accomplished through the construction of "types" - the sorts of labels that we commonly apply to people. On the one hand, "types" are abstractions which can be used to describe populations (for example, in terms of percent makeup) without referring to any individual person. Yet, simultaneously, these "types" and their associated stereotypes become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and in that sense actually work at the individual level to shape behavior.
It is important to keep in mind that "government" is distinct from the state. The state does employ governmental strategies, but government extends far beyond the state. The "personality types," which has become a very popular corporate/organizational training tool, is one such example. Corporations invest in this training because they believe it will increase the efficacy of communication in the workplace. They can induce desired behaviors among their employees by assigning to all of them a certain essence and encouraging them to view their work relationships within the framework of these essences. It is easier to deal with someone when the complexity and unpredictability of their actions is eliminated.
This is most definitely a form of power, though it need not necessarily be harmful, in and of itself. Still, I must say that I do not like to be interpreted and responded to according to some label that does not represent who I really am. I, like everyone, am context-specific and complex. I first encountered the four personality types during a job training. I believe that it actually made communication with my coworkers more difficult because they mischaracterized me from the beginning and were quite apt to misinterpret my behavior.
I think it is useful to remember that the concept of "personality" is a tool of governmental power, and that the best way to get to know anyone is to learn all the nuances of their behavior across a variety of contexts. That is difficult work, but it is more accurate.
The concept of governmental power (aka "governmentality") was introduced by the French philosopher/sociologist Michel Foucault. Foucault argued that government employs two contradictory modes of operation: it abstracts and manages humans as populations at the same time as it acts by penetrating individual consciousness and creating personal "essences." This is accomplished through the construction of "types" - the sorts of labels that we commonly apply to people. On the one hand, "types" are abstractions which can be used to describe populations (for example, in terms of percent makeup) without referring to any individual person. Yet, simultaneously, these "types" and their associated stereotypes become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and in that sense actually work at the individual level to shape behavior.
It is important to keep in mind that "government" is distinct from the state. The state does employ governmental strategies, but government extends far beyond the state. The "personality types," which has become a very popular corporate/organizational training tool, is one such example. Corporations invest in this training because they believe it will increase the efficacy of communication in the workplace. They can induce desired behaviors among their employees by assigning to all of them a certain essence and encouraging them to view their work relationships within the framework of these essences. It is easier to deal with someone when the complexity and unpredictability of their actions is eliminated.
This is most definitely a form of power, though it need not necessarily be harmful, in and of itself. Still, I must say that I do not like to be interpreted and responded to according to some label that does not represent who I really am. I, like everyone, am context-specific and complex. I first encountered the four personality types during a job training. I believe that it actually made communication with my coworkers more difficult because they mischaracterized me from the beginning and were quite apt to misinterpret my behavior.
I think it is useful to remember that the concept of "personality" is a tool of governmental power, and that the best way to get to know anyone is to learn all the nuances of their behavior across a variety of contexts. That is difficult work, but it is more accurate.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Book Review: 1984 by George Orwell
I decided some time ago that I wanted to review this book on my blog, simply because it is such an iconic portrayal of the political and economic issues that dominate the contemporary world. In some ways, this work is incredibly prescient. To be sure, it is probably one of the most frequently quoted works of literature of the twentieth century. At the same time, this novel embodies some fundamental misunderstandings and creates a number of false oppositions which I believe deserve some discussion, as they have attained the status of taken-for-granted dogma. In particular, Orwell ascribes some characteristics to totalitarian/socialist states which, rather than being the end point of some slippery slope away from capitalism/democracy, are actually endemic to capitalism/democracy.
Disclaimer: it has been a while since I read the book, and it is fairly long, so this is not a comprehensive evaluation of the work, by any means!
Let me start by acknowledging the strong points of 1984. There are two areas, in particular, where I believe Orwell hit the nail on the head. Most significantly, his concept of a "permanent war" was incredibly predictive of the rise of the military-industrial complex and the use of military interventions and military spending as a means to increase demand and facilitate economic growth. According to Orwell, large-scale production for the arms industry allows those in power to keep the working class busy, without having to create demand for what is produced (i.e. allowing the workers to buy more and raise their standard of living) since all that is produced is eventually destroyed. The working class becomes more productive but still makes do with the bare necessities. Ernest Mandel, in Late Capitalism, made a similar argument regarding the role of the permanent arms economy that has developed following WW2. Mandel, however, sees the rationale less in any direct concern for the conditions of the working class (lower wages/standard of living is only advantageous in so far as it raises profits margins for the capitalists), but rather in capitalists' need to find another outlet for investment if they are to maintain profitability. Remember the general principle that continued investment in a profitable enterprise decreases its profitability. The advantage of the new investment in the armament industry is that it creates demand by forcing the working class to finance it through tax dollars. Thus, even in this case, Orwell overlooked the way in which the "permanent war" derived from the inherent principles of capitalism itself.
A second strength of 1984 is the way in which it demonstrates the power of language, and in particular, the relationship between thought and language. This is a topic that has been endlessly pondered and debated among linguists, anthropologists, linguistic anthropologists, philosophers, and literary critics. Although there are widely diverging opinions on this subject, most would agree that language is neither neutral nor natural. It is not natural because it is an arbitrary social convention: for example, the word "tree" could just as easily mean "rock" if we decided it was so. There is nothing about the sound "tree" that is inherently connected to the physical object to which it refers. Language is not neutral because the words one chooses always convey a point of view. The existence of words themselves entail a specific way of categorizing the world which is never the only means of doing so. How one categorizes the world (the language one uses) will, then, affect how one views and interpret the world.
Orwell is absolutely correct that relationships of power involve strategic use of language to influence consciousness and generate consent. Yet, Orwell also misses the mark here. First, even while he acknowledges the political use of language, he still seems to uphold a naturalist perspective of language, in which there are "correct" and "distorted" uses of words. For example, Orwell assumes that the word "peace" has one "correct" referent in the real world, regardless of social usage (he doesn't seem to countenance the idea that meanings are arbitrary and can shift and change). If conventional use of the word "peace," however, changes or broadens to include circumstances that previously would not be accorded such a label, it is not the original concept itself that is disturbed, but merely the word, the symbol. The real question is, if a concept has no word to refer to it (through shifts in language use) does that concept suddenly cease to exist, and can it never be brought back into existence?
Because he does not allow for the fluidity of meaning, Orwell's view on the politics of language amounts to something like absolute control: the powers that be essentially brainwash people by forcing them to adopt new forms of language use. In reality, however, meaning can never be controlled and manipulated that effectively; one cannot prevent the multiple interpretations, misunderstandings, and resignifications that make resistance a perennial counterpart to power. Most problematically, Orwell seems to think that the "manipulations" of language he describes are a problem endemic only to totalitarian states. Yet, one need only look at the United States to find examples of Orwellian abbreviations (CENCOM, USSTRATCOM, etc.) as well as the application of words to circumstances that contradict their own meaning (the "free market").
This last point is illustrative of two major weaknesses of Orwell's work. First, the book is premised on certain fundamental oppositions between socialism and capitalism, democracy and totalitarianism, which I have already argued are false distinctions (follow the links to see those discussions). It is clear that many of the trends Orwell describes are already present in the capitalist, democratic world, and it is much more due to the inherent nature of these systems themselves, than in any movement toward anything else.
Second, Orwell's fallacious construction of the relationship between language and power is symptomatic of his more general mischaracterization of the nature of power, the state, and government (once again, follow links to view my previous discussions of these issues). Orwell presumes that power is centralized in a single person (Big Brother) or group of people (the Party), and in a single institution (the state). This contradicts the principle that power is without a unified center or source, and is most certainly NOT monopolized by the state. Just look at the criticism leveled at Facebook and Apple for their invasions of privacy! If anything, a non-unified group of corporations has become our "Big Brother." More radically, using these technologies we have all become each other's "Big Brother."
To this end, Orwell also misunderstands the way in which power works. He views power primarily in terms of direct, coercive and restrictive force, while overlooking the more subtle, consent-based and productive strategies that can achieve more spectacular results. Power relationships have extended their reach not primarily through the use of police, surveillance, imprisonment, and torture. To the contrary, power relationships have extended themselves inward, penetrating consciousness in a manner that allows the subject to act freely. Strategies of power encourage behaviors, and they do so without force. (Following from my last series of posts, consider how images and discourses about "health" promote consumption of diet products, gym memberships, and pharmaceuticals, just as they more generally shape personal eating habits and behaviors.) Recall my argument that the difference between dictatorship and democracy is the extent to which democracies are able to use wealth and other resources to build phsyical and ideological infrastructure to reduce reliance on coercive mechanisms of control. Coersion is less effective, and if this were the sole base of power, as in the world of 1984, there would most surely be an uprising. (Just witness events in MENA right now.)
However, Orwell justifies the scenario by portraying the workers as too uneducated and ignorant to recognize their own interests and challenge the system. This is a third weakness in his work. Orwell severely underestimates the capabilities and consciousness of the working class, even when denied an education and saturated with propaganda. One need only look at historical and anthropological evidence to see that this hypothetical scenario has no empirical justification. Nationalism and propaganda do work, but only to a certain extent. At some point, when conditions become harsh enough, a breaking point will be reached.
Orwell's neglect of the most common mechanisms of power also prevents him from foreseeing the type of imperialism that eventually emerged in the post-WW2 era. It is not, as in the past, an imperialism based primarily on military violence and direct force, though this is the nature of Orwell's "permanent war." In contrast, imperialism today is more often a matter of manipulating social and economic polices via transnational lending organizations, multinational coporations, and foreign development aid programs. The generation of consent through the spread of neoliberal ideology, and the creation of a guise of "humanitarian" motives, have become extremely effective ways of maintaining control without violence or coersion (although the latter do still have their place, and may also appear under the guise of "humanitarian" motives!).
Thus, the most harmful aspect of 1984 is the way in which it encourages us to look for power in places where it does not reside ("Big Brother," particular forms of government) and to ignore all the relationships of power in which we ARE enmeshed, in increasingly subtle ways.
Disclaimer: it has been a while since I read the book, and it is fairly long, so this is not a comprehensive evaluation of the work, by any means!
Let me start by acknowledging the strong points of 1984. There are two areas, in particular, where I believe Orwell hit the nail on the head. Most significantly, his concept of a "permanent war" was incredibly predictive of the rise of the military-industrial complex and the use of military interventions and military spending as a means to increase demand and facilitate economic growth. According to Orwell, large-scale production for the arms industry allows those in power to keep the working class busy, without having to create demand for what is produced (i.e. allowing the workers to buy more and raise their standard of living) since all that is produced is eventually destroyed. The working class becomes more productive but still makes do with the bare necessities. Ernest Mandel, in Late Capitalism, made a similar argument regarding the role of the permanent arms economy that has developed following WW2. Mandel, however, sees the rationale less in any direct concern for the conditions of the working class (lower wages/standard of living is only advantageous in so far as it raises profits margins for the capitalists), but rather in capitalists' need to find another outlet for investment if they are to maintain profitability. Remember the general principle that continued investment in a profitable enterprise decreases its profitability. The advantage of the new investment in the armament industry is that it creates demand by forcing the working class to finance it through tax dollars. Thus, even in this case, Orwell overlooked the way in which the "permanent war" derived from the inherent principles of capitalism itself.
A second strength of 1984 is the way in which it demonstrates the power of language, and in particular, the relationship between thought and language. This is a topic that has been endlessly pondered and debated among linguists, anthropologists, linguistic anthropologists, philosophers, and literary critics. Although there are widely diverging opinions on this subject, most would agree that language is neither neutral nor natural. It is not natural because it is an arbitrary social convention: for example, the word "tree" could just as easily mean "rock" if we decided it was so. There is nothing about the sound "tree" that is inherently connected to the physical object to which it refers. Language is not neutral because the words one chooses always convey a point of view. The existence of words themselves entail a specific way of categorizing the world which is never the only means of doing so. How one categorizes the world (the language one uses) will, then, affect how one views and interpret the world.
Orwell is absolutely correct that relationships of power involve strategic use of language to influence consciousness and generate consent. Yet, Orwell also misses the mark here. First, even while he acknowledges the political use of language, he still seems to uphold a naturalist perspective of language, in which there are "correct" and "distorted" uses of words. For example, Orwell assumes that the word "peace" has one "correct" referent in the real world, regardless of social usage (he doesn't seem to countenance the idea that meanings are arbitrary and can shift and change). If conventional use of the word "peace," however, changes or broadens to include circumstances that previously would not be accorded such a label, it is not the original concept itself that is disturbed, but merely the word, the symbol. The real question is, if a concept has no word to refer to it (through shifts in language use) does that concept suddenly cease to exist, and can it never be brought back into existence?
Because he does not allow for the fluidity of meaning, Orwell's view on the politics of language amounts to something like absolute control: the powers that be essentially brainwash people by forcing them to adopt new forms of language use. In reality, however, meaning can never be controlled and manipulated that effectively; one cannot prevent the multiple interpretations, misunderstandings, and resignifications that make resistance a perennial counterpart to power. Most problematically, Orwell seems to think that the "manipulations" of language he describes are a problem endemic only to totalitarian states. Yet, one need only look at the United States to find examples of Orwellian abbreviations (CENCOM, USSTRATCOM, etc.) as well as the application of words to circumstances that contradict their own meaning (the "free market").
This last point is illustrative of two major weaknesses of Orwell's work. First, the book is premised on certain fundamental oppositions between socialism and capitalism, democracy and totalitarianism, which I have already argued are false distinctions (follow the links to see those discussions). It is clear that many of the trends Orwell describes are already present in the capitalist, democratic world, and it is much more due to the inherent nature of these systems themselves, than in any movement toward anything else.
Second, Orwell's fallacious construction of the relationship between language and power is symptomatic of his more general mischaracterization of the nature of power, the state, and government (once again, follow links to view my previous discussions of these issues). Orwell presumes that power is centralized in a single person (Big Brother) or group of people (the Party), and in a single institution (the state). This contradicts the principle that power is without a unified center or source, and is most certainly NOT monopolized by the state. Just look at the criticism leveled at Facebook and Apple for their invasions of privacy! If anything, a non-unified group of corporations has become our "Big Brother." More radically, using these technologies we have all become each other's "Big Brother."
To this end, Orwell also misunderstands the way in which power works. He views power primarily in terms of direct, coercive and restrictive force, while overlooking the more subtle, consent-based and productive strategies that can achieve more spectacular results. Power relationships have extended their reach not primarily through the use of police, surveillance, imprisonment, and torture. To the contrary, power relationships have extended themselves inward, penetrating consciousness in a manner that allows the subject to act freely. Strategies of power encourage behaviors, and they do so without force. (Following from my last series of posts, consider how images and discourses about "health" promote consumption of diet products, gym memberships, and pharmaceuticals, just as they more generally shape personal eating habits and behaviors.) Recall my argument that the difference between dictatorship and democracy is the extent to which democracies are able to use wealth and other resources to build phsyical and ideological infrastructure to reduce reliance on coercive mechanisms of control. Coersion is less effective, and if this were the sole base of power, as in the world of 1984, there would most surely be an uprising. (Just witness events in MENA right now.)
However, Orwell justifies the scenario by portraying the workers as too uneducated and ignorant to recognize their own interests and challenge the system. This is a third weakness in his work. Orwell severely underestimates the capabilities and consciousness of the working class, even when denied an education and saturated with propaganda. One need only look at historical and anthropological evidence to see that this hypothetical scenario has no empirical justification. Nationalism and propaganda do work, but only to a certain extent. At some point, when conditions become harsh enough, a breaking point will be reached.
Orwell's neglect of the most common mechanisms of power also prevents him from foreseeing the type of imperialism that eventually emerged in the post-WW2 era. It is not, as in the past, an imperialism based primarily on military violence and direct force, though this is the nature of Orwell's "permanent war." In contrast, imperialism today is more often a matter of manipulating social and economic polices via transnational lending organizations, multinational coporations, and foreign development aid programs. The generation of consent through the spread of neoliberal ideology, and the creation of a guise of "humanitarian" motives, have become extremely effective ways of maintaining control without violence or coersion (although the latter do still have their place, and may also appear under the guise of "humanitarian" motives!).
Thus, the most harmful aspect of 1984 is the way in which it encourages us to look for power in places where it does not reside ("Big Brother," particular forms of government) and to ignore all the relationships of power in which we ARE enmeshed, in increasingly subtle ways.
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.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Social Contract Ideology
One important ideology (though not the most important ideology) structuring common perception of the political-economic order is that of the Social Contract.
Contrary to the notion of power that I have been using, Social Contract ideology treats power as something that is centralized in and wielded by the state, with the consent of its citizens, and is exercised primarily via direct force and/or the rule of law. The state, for its part, possesses discrete boundaries and is coincident with a "public realm." Wealth, in this view, derives from property (the protection of which is the primary function of the state) and its acquisition is atomistic rather than relational, such that wealth in itself begets further wealth.
Social Contract ideology is often combined with nationalist ideology, which presupposes that the human race is naturally divided into a number of discrete units (nations or ethnic groups), which should ideally form the basis of state-territorial boundaries.
Social Contract ideology legitimates the social order in a number of ways. Most significantly, it ignores social structures and forms of power other than the state and sovereignty, and thus conceals real sources and means of domination. The power of a state, in turn, is seen by the citizenry as deriving from their own consent, for their own benefit and protection (and in a democracy they may even believe they have ultimate power), obscuring the fact that the state is merely a tool employed by the capitalist class in the service of capitalist interests. The aims and interests of the capitalist class, moreover, are easily construed as "the public good," even as they disadvantage and endanger the majority of the population. As a corollary, whenever a state is perceived to act in a manner contrary to the public good, this is construed as an isolated abuse of power which can be rectified, and does not call into question the nature of the state in general.
Additionally, Social Contract ideology has enabled the construction of political spectra constituted by discrete "forms of government," often including oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, republics, and anarchy. This supposed range of options conceals the reality that there is only one type of rule (the rule of the few over the many: oligarchy), and that the only political difference is the way in which domination is exercised and maintained (which is, itself, merely a function of particular socio-economic circumstances). Thus, citizens of supposed "democracies" operate happily under the illusion that they live in the best and freest conditions possible, and are too complacent to really challenge the social order.
Contrary to the notion of power that I have been using, Social Contract ideology treats power as something that is centralized in and wielded by the state, with the consent of its citizens, and is exercised primarily via direct force and/or the rule of law. The state, for its part, possesses discrete boundaries and is coincident with a "public realm." Wealth, in this view, derives from property (the protection of which is the primary function of the state) and its acquisition is atomistic rather than relational, such that wealth in itself begets further wealth.
Social Contract ideology is often combined with nationalist ideology, which presupposes that the human race is naturally divided into a number of discrete units (nations or ethnic groups), which should ideally form the basis of state-territorial boundaries.
Social Contract ideology legitimates the social order in a number of ways. Most significantly, it ignores social structures and forms of power other than the state and sovereignty, and thus conceals real sources and means of domination. The power of a state, in turn, is seen by the citizenry as deriving from their own consent, for their own benefit and protection (and in a democracy they may even believe they have ultimate power), obscuring the fact that the state is merely a tool employed by the capitalist class in the service of capitalist interests. The aims and interests of the capitalist class, moreover, are easily construed as "the public good," even as they disadvantage and endanger the majority of the population. As a corollary, whenever a state is perceived to act in a manner contrary to the public good, this is construed as an isolated abuse of power which can be rectified, and does not call into question the nature of the state in general.
Additionally, Social Contract ideology has enabled the construction of political spectra constituted by discrete "forms of government," often including oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, republics, and anarchy. This supposed range of options conceals the reality that there is only one type of rule (the rule of the few over the many: oligarchy), and that the only political difference is the way in which domination is exercised and maintained (which is, itself, merely a function of particular socio-economic circumstances). Thus, citizens of supposed "democracies" operate happily under the illusion that they live in the best and freest conditions possible, and are too complacent to really challenge the social order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)