The first person I talked to about the Boston Marathon Bombing - as soon as it came on the news - insisted it had to be jihadist.
Yes, everyone assumes that all or most terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims.
When it turned out that the perpetrators were, in fact, Muslim, everyone immediately concluded (once again, in the absence of any evidence) that their religion must have something to do with their actions. That could turn out to be true. But it is also possible that they were motivated by some Chechen liberation cause that had nothing to do with Islam (national liberation movements/sympathizers have committed more terrorist acts in the US than jihadists). And it is also possible that personal trauma (the best friend of one of the brothers was brutally murdered) or some other factor that has nothing to do with either their religion or ethnicity is really to blame. We just don't know. But the fact remains that all of the media discussions about the brothers' potential links to Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups just serves to reinforce the idea that all terrorists are Muslims and all Muslims are terrorists.
So I gave up on the media and started looking at the FBI's published lists of terrorist activity. What I found, overall, backs up the claim that about 6% of terrorist incidents in the U.S. are Islamic. I saw that there has actually been more Jewish terrorism than Islamic. And just to give you a sense of how rare Islamic terrorism really is: there were more incidents involving the Earth Liberation Front in 2001 than incidents involving Muslims from 1980-2005.
Now, it seems as though the incidents that have involved Muslims have received proportionately more attention than any other religious or political group (and that's an understatement). That just shows how skewed people's perceptions can be as a result of dominant ideologies promoted by the media. However, the consequences are severe: Muslims (or anyone who looks Arab or Muslim to the undiscerning eyes of Americans) are discriminated against; they get detained for hours whenever they travel because they are deemed automatically suspect.
The reality as demonstrated by the FBI data makes it absolutely clear that Muslims are being treated unfairly.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Chivalry and Chauvinism
After an incident at my workplace, in which a male of high rank decided to act “chivalrous” toward a female colleague, I have initiated discussions with some of my friends about the historical and contemporary implications of chivalry. Unfortunately, the difficulty we face is the persistent belief (often shared among oppressor and oppressed) that stereotypes and gestures cannot be truly discriminatory if they are flattering. What’s wrong with saying that Asians are good at math? And isn’t it nice when a man holds a door for a woman?
The problem is, so long as any statement or gesture reinforces difference, and so long as difference always implies hierarchy (as it will until/unless the world is radically restructured), the act will bring to bear some applicable power relationship, some dynamic of domination. It works something like this. Say I am a woman waiting for a bus. I may be thinking about any number of things – what happened at work, what I plan to cook for dinner, how warm it is, and so on. As soon as a man steps aside to let me on the bus, I may still have a number of other things on my mind, but I am also now thinking, on some level, about the fact that I am a woman. And the man is also thinking, on some level, about the fact that he is a man.
That’s pretty harmless, though, right?
Well, for one thing, it adds up. As a woman, on the basis of these trivial actions, your gender is constantly being emphasized even when it’s not important or you don’t want to think about it (particularly in the workplace), and most importantly, you, as a woman, have no control over when this occurs. You realize that you never get to decide who goes in first or last, and this is yet another instance in which your ability to act is not equal to that of men. People argue that chivalry is just run-of-the-mill politeness. However, if chivalry were merely about being polite, it would not be the prerogative of men.
Furthermore, if chivalry were just about politeness, men would not feel insulted when women try to do the same for them. Although personal experiences here may vary, it is definitely true – and I have seen overwhelming evidence in support of this claim – that a good majority of men feel some degree of shame when women insist, “after you.” This shame comes from a perceived threat to their masculinity. They are, after all, supposed to be the “big, strong man.”
Finally, say what you will, chivalry does convey the message that women are weak and helpless. Historically, as these traditions emerged, the ideological justification for chivalry was expressed quite openly. And then it reinforced other existing forms of inequality. For example, women couldn’t even get into carriages by themselves, so they certainly couldn’t be entrusted with the privilege of voting. Some people argue that these historical facts aren’t applicable today. I counter that, first, it is important to remember that history is always relevant to the present. Attitudes and practices do not disappear nearly as easily as we think they do. Culture has a habit of reproducing itself. Second, I contend that ideas about feminine weakness DO persist, and are thus relevant today. That’s why we still have gender segregated sports. That’s why you hear countless women expressing their desire for a strong man who will protect them. That’s why men feel they need to open doors for women.
For any girl who has literally tried to compete on an equal playing field with boys, it is clear that boys do not tolerate girls who aren’t athletically inferior to them. Boys feel threatened when girls show them up. Boys insult each other by comparing their abilities to girls’. Because boys still learn that they are supposed to be physically superior to girls. Then those boys grow up and start pulling out chairs and opening up doors for women, just so they can remind themselves of that superiority.
The problem is, so long as any statement or gesture reinforces difference, and so long as difference always implies hierarchy (as it will until/unless the world is radically restructured), the act will bring to bear some applicable power relationship, some dynamic of domination. It works something like this. Say I am a woman waiting for a bus. I may be thinking about any number of things – what happened at work, what I plan to cook for dinner, how warm it is, and so on. As soon as a man steps aside to let me on the bus, I may still have a number of other things on my mind, but I am also now thinking, on some level, about the fact that I am a woman. And the man is also thinking, on some level, about the fact that he is a man.
That’s pretty harmless, though, right?
Well, for one thing, it adds up. As a woman, on the basis of these trivial actions, your gender is constantly being emphasized even when it’s not important or you don’t want to think about it (particularly in the workplace), and most importantly, you, as a woman, have no control over when this occurs. You realize that you never get to decide who goes in first or last, and this is yet another instance in which your ability to act is not equal to that of men. People argue that chivalry is just run-of-the-mill politeness. However, if chivalry were merely about being polite, it would not be the prerogative of men.
Furthermore, if chivalry were just about politeness, men would not feel insulted when women try to do the same for them. Although personal experiences here may vary, it is definitely true – and I have seen overwhelming evidence in support of this claim – that a good majority of men feel some degree of shame when women insist, “after you.” This shame comes from a perceived threat to their masculinity. They are, after all, supposed to be the “big, strong man.”
Finally, say what you will, chivalry does convey the message that women are weak and helpless. Historically, as these traditions emerged, the ideological justification for chivalry was expressed quite openly. And then it reinforced other existing forms of inequality. For example, women couldn’t even get into carriages by themselves, so they certainly couldn’t be entrusted with the privilege of voting. Some people argue that these historical facts aren’t applicable today. I counter that, first, it is important to remember that history is always relevant to the present. Attitudes and practices do not disappear nearly as easily as we think they do. Culture has a habit of reproducing itself. Second, I contend that ideas about feminine weakness DO persist, and are thus relevant today. That’s why we still have gender segregated sports. That’s why you hear countless women expressing their desire for a strong man who will protect them. That’s why men feel they need to open doors for women.
For any girl who has literally tried to compete on an equal playing field with boys, it is clear that boys do not tolerate girls who aren’t athletically inferior to them. Boys feel threatened when girls show them up. Boys insult each other by comparing their abilities to girls’. Because boys still learn that they are supposed to be physically superior to girls. Then those boys grow up and start pulling out chairs and opening up doors for women, just so they can remind themselves of that superiority.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Sanctity of Small Businesses
I have written previously about the concept of the “middle class” and how it is strategically used by politicians to create divisions and distort reality. The concept of the “small business” works in a very similar way, and I think it is important to highlight its function in political rhetoric. This is on my mind particularly because pretty much every political discussion I have heard lately has had some sort of appeal to the effects of various proposals on small businesses.
If anyone were unfamiliar with American society, a few hours watching any cable news channel would be enough to show them the great reverence in which small businesses are held. In fact, it seems that the most effective attack one can launch on any proposed policy or regulation is to demonstrate its negative impact on small businesses. One would think that small businesses must be the engine of the American economy.
They are not. Of course, it is not hard to see why everyone likes small businesses: they are the exemplars of entrepreneurialism, individualism, and free market laissez-faire capitalism. They stand in opposition to the corruption, human rights abuses, and political finagling of large corporations. Even the most die-hard capitalist apologists have a hard time defending those evil multinational corporations who ship American jobs overseas. Thank goodness there are small businesses to salvage the ideals of capitalism.
So part of the political usefulness of the concept of small business lies in its very appeal. People see capitalist virtue embodied in small business. The “small business” is a loaded ideological symbol which, as a discursive element, conjures up associations with cherished values and some old-timey nostalgia to boot. This can be compared to the appeal of the “middle class,” though the latter also draws its discursive power from the fact that most everyone identifies themselves as members of the middle class.
However, like the concept of “middle class,” the notion of the “small business” serves an important ideological purpose in addition to those more immediate and practical ends. The constant references to small businesses bolster false images of capitalism. It counters the reality that capitalism’s nature is to increasingly centralize capital, to nourish monopolies, to exploit and dominate. It discounts the importance of mega-conglomerates in economic, political, and social spheres. Moreover, it reroutes conversations away from analyses of the ways in which corporations secure their wealth and manipulate social structures, and focuses discussion instead on misguided notions about the inherent conflict between government and business.
The truth is, that capitalism has been the greatest threat to free markets and small businesses.
If anyone were unfamiliar with American society, a few hours watching any cable news channel would be enough to show them the great reverence in which small businesses are held. In fact, it seems that the most effective attack one can launch on any proposed policy or regulation is to demonstrate its negative impact on small businesses. One would think that small businesses must be the engine of the American economy.
They are not. Of course, it is not hard to see why everyone likes small businesses: they are the exemplars of entrepreneurialism, individualism, and free market laissez-faire capitalism. They stand in opposition to the corruption, human rights abuses, and political finagling of large corporations. Even the most die-hard capitalist apologists have a hard time defending those evil multinational corporations who ship American jobs overseas. Thank goodness there are small businesses to salvage the ideals of capitalism.
So part of the political usefulness of the concept of small business lies in its very appeal. People see capitalist virtue embodied in small business. The “small business” is a loaded ideological symbol which, as a discursive element, conjures up associations with cherished values and some old-timey nostalgia to boot. This can be compared to the appeal of the “middle class,” though the latter also draws its discursive power from the fact that most everyone identifies themselves as members of the middle class.
However, like the concept of “middle class,” the notion of the “small business” serves an important ideological purpose in addition to those more immediate and practical ends. The constant references to small businesses bolster false images of capitalism. It counters the reality that capitalism’s nature is to increasingly centralize capital, to nourish monopolies, to exploit and dominate. It discounts the importance of mega-conglomerates in economic, political, and social spheres. Moreover, it reroutes conversations away from analyses of the ways in which corporations secure their wealth and manipulate social structures, and focuses discussion instead on misguided notions about the inherent conflict between government and business.
The truth is, that capitalism has been the greatest threat to free markets and small businesses.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Hactivism: The Nonviolent Revolution
It’s hard to be a cynic. I do appreciate the fact that it prevents me from occupying myself with ultimately futile activities. However, cynicism can too easily turn into hopelessness, which begets apathy. I don’t want to be apathetic. How do I reconcile my ideals and my desire for social change with the reality that the ideologies and relationships that constitute power permeate every single aspect of life, including institutionalized movements for change? Including revolutions?
I am opposed to violence. Violence is a function of structures of inequality. It is the basis of patriarchy and slavery and capitalism. Yet, is it possible to transform our world without violence? How?
I don’t believe in the “political process” – whatever that means in reality. There is no boundary separating corporate and financial interests from the institutional apparatus of sanctioned violence and social coercion that is the state. Trying to re-shape the system from within the system is like trying to dry yourself off in the shower. When is the last time that a boycott or a petition created lasting, meaningful social change? Even the protests that constituted the so-called “Arab Spring.” What is fundamentally different in Egypt or Tunisia or Libya, aside from greater poverty and more weapons floating around? Yet, if I take violence and politics off of the table, what is left?
I have long held that technology would be the “creation of the system that ultimately destroys the system.” I have talked a bit about the potential of the internet, in particular, to subvert and escape global capitalism. Yet, I have never given too much thought to hacking, as an aggressive action against the system. It’s getting hard to ignore these days. For one thing, we now live in a world where cyber attacks and cyber security are a solid reality. We have WikiLeaks providing us with classified documents. And we have groups like Anonymous, who hack corporations, governments, and other groups to make social/political statements.
We don’t need weapons to dismantle capitalism. Its entire infrastructure is digitally based, and totally vulnerable to cyber attack. We don’t need to engage in endless debates about the nature of power and the government, trying in vain to convince people that democracy is a sham. Hackers can pull away the curtain and show us who’s really back there and what they are doing.
The only problem is that, currently, hactivists tend to be stuck in the old mindset. They employ a “rights” framework and fight for isolated “freedoms.” They protest against particular governments – governments that are under the thumb of industrial powers, no less – without seeing the larger forces that are responsible for the actions of these governments. Overall, they retain a very reformist attitude, and they are not able to keep sight of the larger picture: the particular articulation of capitalist relations, liberal discourses, bureaucracy, and governmental power that orders global and local social structures.
Hactivism could be a very effective nonviolent form of resistance. It just requires a very clear definition of the enemy, and a will to complete transform society.
I am opposed to violence. Violence is a function of structures of inequality. It is the basis of patriarchy and slavery and capitalism. Yet, is it possible to transform our world without violence? How?
I don’t believe in the “political process” – whatever that means in reality. There is no boundary separating corporate and financial interests from the institutional apparatus of sanctioned violence and social coercion that is the state. Trying to re-shape the system from within the system is like trying to dry yourself off in the shower. When is the last time that a boycott or a petition created lasting, meaningful social change? Even the protests that constituted the so-called “Arab Spring.” What is fundamentally different in Egypt or Tunisia or Libya, aside from greater poverty and more weapons floating around? Yet, if I take violence and politics off of the table, what is left?
I have long held that technology would be the “creation of the system that ultimately destroys the system.” I have talked a bit about the potential of the internet, in particular, to subvert and escape global capitalism. Yet, I have never given too much thought to hacking, as an aggressive action against the system. It’s getting hard to ignore these days. For one thing, we now live in a world where cyber attacks and cyber security are a solid reality. We have WikiLeaks providing us with classified documents. And we have groups like Anonymous, who hack corporations, governments, and other groups to make social/political statements.
We don’t need weapons to dismantle capitalism. Its entire infrastructure is digitally based, and totally vulnerable to cyber attack. We don’t need to engage in endless debates about the nature of power and the government, trying in vain to convince people that democracy is a sham. Hackers can pull away the curtain and show us who’s really back there and what they are doing.
The only problem is that, currently, hactivists tend to be stuck in the old mindset. They employ a “rights” framework and fight for isolated “freedoms.” They protest against particular governments – governments that are under the thumb of industrial powers, no less – without seeing the larger forces that are responsible for the actions of these governments. Overall, they retain a very reformist attitude, and they are not able to keep sight of the larger picture: the particular articulation of capitalist relations, liberal discourses, bureaucracy, and governmental power that orders global and local social structures.
Hactivism could be a very effective nonviolent form of resistance. It just requires a very clear definition of the enemy, and a will to complete transform society.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Truth about Marriage
Once again, an issue of power/oppression is being scrutinized within the framework of human rights and functionalist social theory. The Supreme Court hearings this week are nothing more than an opportunity to rehash ideas and arguments that everyone is familiar with, but no one seriously questions. The conception of marriage exhibited in these discussions reflects both the Ideology of Progress and a latent neoliberalism, yet holds no weight against historical and anthropological evidence. I think it is important to examine some of these popular myths about marriage in an effort to understand the real history of marriage and its ideological construction in the modern era.
Throughout all of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman.
There has been tremendous variation throughout time and across cultures in how marriage is defined. There is no single definition of marriage that has been universally accepted. In fact, polygamy has been a very prevalent form of marriage for most of human history, even if it has been declining recently. (Thus, countering the “slippery slope to polygamy” argument.)
The function of marriage is to regulate procreation
Like the forms that marriages take, their functions are similarly diverse. However, if one really wishes to generalize, for most of human history marriage has most often served an economic purpose (which is why, in anthropology courses, the two topics are often taught in tandem). But, economics is never really separate from other aspects of the social structure, and so it would be a bit narrow to say that marriage is purely “economic” in the modern understanding of the word. However, marriage has commonly functioned as a type or realm of exchange (the basis of economic activity). These exchanges facilitate the integration of different kin groups and determine responsibility for the care and provisioning of certain segments of society. This does, of course, include children, but may also include elders and other people who cannot participate fully in the social division of labor. Significantly, the social division of labor is almost always gendered, and consequently in many instances, a woman is treated as a form of property, which another adult male can own for the purposes of extracting labor. Hence, if there is any such thing as “traditional marriage” then traditional marriage has served the primary function of exploiting and oppressing women.
But let’s get back to those children. In more communal societies, marriage may have determined which group of people was responsible for provisioning a particular child, and that group might have included kin and non-kin. However, in atomistic capitalist societies, the nuclear family has become the primary (“sacred”) means of providing for children. This concentrates and confines all of the responsibilities, risks, and expenses involved in childcare to one or two people – and it is guaranteed that one of those people (the woman) is already saddled with a larger share of the division of labor in combination with fewer resources. If the one or two people who have been charged with caring for the child do not have enough money or sufficient time or cannot provide a safe environment for their child, then that child is SOL. That is why so many children die of malnutrition, despite the abundance of available food. That is why so many children grow up without supervision, and why so many children are exposed to violence, filth, and disease on a daily basis. Under capitalism, there is no communal responsibility for the raising of children, and therefore no safety net when the parent(s) cannot handle it on their own. In my opinion, that is the most dysfunctional and malevolent social arrangement of all!
We do not know enough about the consequences for children
I refer once again to my point that the forms that marriages and families take have been and are incredibly diverse. Evidence has been accumulating for all of history that marriage in and of itself does not determine the fate of a society or the character of its children. What matters is the social structure as a whole, and structures that are severely unequal and exploitative are the most unstable. If we are concerned for our children, then we should get rid of capitalism.
Children need a mom and a dad
False. See my argument above. In addition, this idea is based on the assumption that gender is a natural trait. To the contrary, gender, and even sex (the anatomical distinction between male and female), are social constructions. Hormones and other biological factors vary continuously, not discretely, and there is a considerable overlap between male and female. Furthermore, characterizations of gender differences have varied throughout history and across cultures, and there is no evidence of any link to biological factors. What it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman today are very culturally specific. It is absurd to say that there is any innate, biological need for a child to be exposed to particular cultural constructs.
Marriage is sacred
If the historical functions of marriage, particularly in the West, have most often been concerned with the gendered division of labor, exploitation, and subordination of women, and furthermore, if the nuclear family in the context of a capitalist society cannot adequately serve the needs of most children.... why do we even need marriage? Are there not better ways to nurture loving human relationships and to provide for vulnerable segments of society? I’m not so sure that a victory for marriage equality will be a real step toward meaningful social change.
Throughout all of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman.
There has been tremendous variation throughout time and across cultures in how marriage is defined. There is no single definition of marriage that has been universally accepted. In fact, polygamy has been a very prevalent form of marriage for most of human history, even if it has been declining recently. (Thus, countering the “slippery slope to polygamy” argument.)
The function of marriage is to regulate procreation
Like the forms that marriages take, their functions are similarly diverse. However, if one really wishes to generalize, for most of human history marriage has most often served an economic purpose (which is why, in anthropology courses, the two topics are often taught in tandem). But, economics is never really separate from other aspects of the social structure, and so it would be a bit narrow to say that marriage is purely “economic” in the modern understanding of the word. However, marriage has commonly functioned as a type or realm of exchange (the basis of economic activity). These exchanges facilitate the integration of different kin groups and determine responsibility for the care and provisioning of certain segments of society. This does, of course, include children, but may also include elders and other people who cannot participate fully in the social division of labor. Significantly, the social division of labor is almost always gendered, and consequently in many instances, a woman is treated as a form of property, which another adult male can own for the purposes of extracting labor. Hence, if there is any such thing as “traditional marriage” then traditional marriage has served the primary function of exploiting and oppressing women.
But let’s get back to those children. In more communal societies, marriage may have determined which group of people was responsible for provisioning a particular child, and that group might have included kin and non-kin. However, in atomistic capitalist societies, the nuclear family has become the primary (“sacred”) means of providing for children. This concentrates and confines all of the responsibilities, risks, and expenses involved in childcare to one or two people – and it is guaranteed that one of those people (the woman) is already saddled with a larger share of the division of labor in combination with fewer resources. If the one or two people who have been charged with caring for the child do not have enough money or sufficient time or cannot provide a safe environment for their child, then that child is SOL. That is why so many children die of malnutrition, despite the abundance of available food. That is why so many children grow up without supervision, and why so many children are exposed to violence, filth, and disease on a daily basis. Under capitalism, there is no communal responsibility for the raising of children, and therefore no safety net when the parent(s) cannot handle it on their own. In my opinion, that is the most dysfunctional and malevolent social arrangement of all!
We do not know enough about the consequences for children
I refer once again to my point that the forms that marriages and families take have been and are incredibly diverse. Evidence has been accumulating for all of history that marriage in and of itself does not determine the fate of a society or the character of its children. What matters is the social structure as a whole, and structures that are severely unequal and exploitative are the most unstable. If we are concerned for our children, then we should get rid of capitalism.
Children need a mom and a dad
False. See my argument above. In addition, this idea is based on the assumption that gender is a natural trait. To the contrary, gender, and even sex (the anatomical distinction between male and female), are social constructions. Hormones and other biological factors vary continuously, not discretely, and there is a considerable overlap between male and female. Furthermore, characterizations of gender differences have varied throughout history and across cultures, and there is no evidence of any link to biological factors. What it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman today are very culturally specific. It is absurd to say that there is any innate, biological need for a child to be exposed to particular cultural constructs.
Marriage is sacred
If the historical functions of marriage, particularly in the West, have most often been concerned with the gendered division of labor, exploitation, and subordination of women, and furthermore, if the nuclear family in the context of a capitalist society cannot adequately serve the needs of most children.... why do we even need marriage? Are there not better ways to nurture loving human relationships and to provide for vulnerable segments of society? I’m not so sure that a victory for marriage equality will be a real step toward meaningful social change.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Generational Stereotyping
It seems the latest rage in the business world is making generalizations about employees based on the generation to which they belong. Some businesses have hired consultants to explain these generational differences to their employees so that they can interact with each other more effectively. This, of course, is another variation on the “personality types.” The basic idea is still the same: condense all of human variation into a few discrete catagories in order to simplify human relationships.
I have complained to my employer about such a workshop in which I must participate. My concerns were countered with the assertion that “this is a science.” It may be a science, I was tempted to reply, but science is not infallible. In fact, the worst types of science in the last few centuries have been precisely those that elaborate and solidify catagorizations of human beings, whether it is based on race, gender, age, or any number of factors.
All categories are arbitrary. If I were born just a few years earlier, I would belong to a different generation, but there is no reason why the official “line” has to fall on that exact year. There are an infinite number of ways to create generational categories, and none is definitive. Furthermore, human variation is always continuous, not discrete. What this means is that the arbtirary categories will necessarily overlap to a significant extent. I am a Millenial, but my brother and many of my friends growing up were Gen Xers. Hence, the world I inhabited, the attitudes and views that I assimilated, were shared with people of an officially different generation. Yet, the whole basis of this new generational consulting fad is that generational differences are based on the entirely different environments in which people’s knowledge, attitudes, and values are shaped. But everyone on the boundaries – not just me – has grown up in an environment that includes people of two different generations. It’s not like in reality some big break occurs that would cause a neat, clean-cut generational divide.
People who are closer in age definitely have a larger shared cultural frame of reference, and their attitudes toward new technology will certainly dependent to some extent on how old they are (though even this generalization doesn’t entirely hold). Yet the concept of a “generation” doesn’t reflect that reality at all. For one thing, people on opposite ends of the range have far less in common with each other than they do with people on the other side of the generational divide. My experiences growing up were much closer to people born in 1980 than to those born in 2004. Nine-year-old children belong to the same generation as me! And I have a hard time relating to the world of college students!
The idea of a “generation” was originally employed in social science to describe specific groups of people at times of social upheaval - for example, the counterculture of the 1960s – in order to explain societal factors that caused a perceived rift with, and hence rebellion from, the established order. This is a far cry from suggesting that everyone fits into some sort of generational box.
I also take issue with the claim that generational groupings are at least as important as gender, race, class, etc. The latter groups relate to one’s objective place in the social division of labor and within relationships of power and dominance. To push these considerations to the background (as generational theory does) is, once again, to elide the role of power relations and the inherent dynamics of the capitalist system. The fact that, for example, generational theorists claim their framework explains Kondratieff cycles, without having any real understanding of economics, makes them all the more laughable and dismissable.
But the steady march of “progress” requires the contant elimination of complexity, as well as the management of human populations in terms of discrete categories. So, if it’s not generational stereotyping or personality stereotyping, it will be something else.
I have complained to my employer about such a workshop in which I must participate. My concerns were countered with the assertion that “this is a science.” It may be a science, I was tempted to reply, but science is not infallible. In fact, the worst types of science in the last few centuries have been precisely those that elaborate and solidify catagorizations of human beings, whether it is based on race, gender, age, or any number of factors.
All categories are arbitrary. If I were born just a few years earlier, I would belong to a different generation, but there is no reason why the official “line” has to fall on that exact year. There are an infinite number of ways to create generational categories, and none is definitive. Furthermore, human variation is always continuous, not discrete. What this means is that the arbtirary categories will necessarily overlap to a significant extent. I am a Millenial, but my brother and many of my friends growing up were Gen Xers. Hence, the world I inhabited, the attitudes and views that I assimilated, were shared with people of an officially different generation. Yet, the whole basis of this new generational consulting fad is that generational differences are based on the entirely different environments in which people’s knowledge, attitudes, and values are shaped. But everyone on the boundaries – not just me – has grown up in an environment that includes people of two different generations. It’s not like in reality some big break occurs that would cause a neat, clean-cut generational divide.
People who are closer in age definitely have a larger shared cultural frame of reference, and their attitudes toward new technology will certainly dependent to some extent on how old they are (though even this generalization doesn’t entirely hold). Yet the concept of a “generation” doesn’t reflect that reality at all. For one thing, people on opposite ends of the range have far less in common with each other than they do with people on the other side of the generational divide. My experiences growing up were much closer to people born in 1980 than to those born in 2004. Nine-year-old children belong to the same generation as me! And I have a hard time relating to the world of college students!
The idea of a “generation” was originally employed in social science to describe specific groups of people at times of social upheaval - for example, the counterculture of the 1960s – in order to explain societal factors that caused a perceived rift with, and hence rebellion from, the established order. This is a far cry from suggesting that everyone fits into some sort of generational box.
I also take issue with the claim that generational groupings are at least as important as gender, race, class, etc. The latter groups relate to one’s objective place in the social division of labor and within relationships of power and dominance. To push these considerations to the background (as generational theory does) is, once again, to elide the role of power relations and the inherent dynamics of the capitalist system. The fact that, for example, generational theorists claim their framework explains Kondratieff cycles, without having any real understanding of economics, makes them all the more laughable and dismissable.
But the steady march of “progress” requires the contant elimination of complexity, as well as the management of human populations in terms of discrete categories. So, if it’s not generational stereotyping or personality stereotyping, it will be something else.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Are Boycotts Still Useful?
After Israel’s latest assault on Palestine, it seems there has been greater interest in Palestinian solidarity groups and movements like Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS). The idea of the latter is to treat Israel as the World Community treated South Africa during its Apartheid years, hoping that the results will be similar. There are two interrelated matters to take in to consideration when it comes to BDS: Israel’s role in the global hierarchy and the value of boycotts in general in the modern world.
The position of Israel is the most crucial issue, so I will start there. Not infrequently, both in unofficial forums in the U.S. and the whole gamut of “officialness” in foreign media sources, I have come across people from the Middle East (and sometimes other parts of the world as well) express the almost-cliched anti-Semitic truisms: Jews control the banks and the media, they pull the strings of Western foreign policy, there is a reason why “everyone” has a problem with the Jews, etc. Obviously there are many Jewish anti-Zionists and anti-Zionists who are in no way anti-Semitic; however, in denouncing Zionism one must take great care not to unintentionally provide support for or feed into the misconceptions of the anti-Semites. When one emphasizes the power of Israel and isolates its evil from the global capitalist system of which it is a part, then one runs the risk of reinforcing the ideas about Jews Running the World and Jews as an Evil People.
It is certainly important to call attention to the reality of the situation in Palestine, as Western media and public discourse are very one-sided. Yet, this attention should also highlight the context of European colonialism, American neocolonialism, and global capitalism. These forces are responsible for nurturing Zionism, guiding it in particular directions, using it to secure global structures of power, and of course, funding and arming it. Just like poor whites in the American South who were inculcated with racism to suit the needs of politicians, Israel is in a sense “only a pawn in the game” (lyrics courtesy of Bob Dylan).
So the question (which can apply to all boycotts) is, why Israel? It seems a bit like cherry-picking. The U.S. has enslaved more people (particularly if you include the humungous prison population) and caused more death and suffering worldwide (including direct support for the Israeli occupation). Why not boycott all goods produced by U.S. companies? In fact, since all corporations exploit human beings (and are complicit to varying degrees with slavery and poverty), why not boycott all capitalist-produced goods? Once again, to single out Israel is to make the Jewish nation appear as the greatest evil in this world when it certainly is not.
But those questions bring me to my second point. One of the first instances of the boycott was employed by Quakers and free blacks in the United States as a reaction to slavery. At that time, it probably was not possible to see the development of capitalism, and certainly the institution of slavery was (and still is) foundational to the capitalist system. In that sense, the boycott really was aiming high. The participants did not want to personally profit off of slavery; thus, it was a general, principled stand rather than a fight against anyone or anything in particular. The problem with boycotts now is that they are directed at specific actors: a certain corporation or set of corporations. All capitalists play by the same rules. If you do not want to personally benefit from capitalist exploitation, then it doesn’t make any sense to single anyone out. In fact, it may end up just putting impoverished people in a more vulnerable position (as I once heard a Bangladeshi Walmart employee say, “But we need the jobs!”). What we need is an effective way to challenge the entire global capitalist system – a way to extricate ourselves from it and call attention to the reality of its mechanisms. When we boycott these days, we are sending the message that we are just concerned about “bad guys,” but the truth is that we are fight against a bad system.
The position of Israel is the most crucial issue, so I will start there. Not infrequently, both in unofficial forums in the U.S. and the whole gamut of “officialness” in foreign media sources, I have come across people from the Middle East (and sometimes other parts of the world as well) express the almost-cliched anti-Semitic truisms: Jews control the banks and the media, they pull the strings of Western foreign policy, there is a reason why “everyone” has a problem with the Jews, etc. Obviously there are many Jewish anti-Zionists and anti-Zionists who are in no way anti-Semitic; however, in denouncing Zionism one must take great care not to unintentionally provide support for or feed into the misconceptions of the anti-Semites. When one emphasizes the power of Israel and isolates its evil from the global capitalist system of which it is a part, then one runs the risk of reinforcing the ideas about Jews Running the World and Jews as an Evil People.
It is certainly important to call attention to the reality of the situation in Palestine, as Western media and public discourse are very one-sided. Yet, this attention should also highlight the context of European colonialism, American neocolonialism, and global capitalism. These forces are responsible for nurturing Zionism, guiding it in particular directions, using it to secure global structures of power, and of course, funding and arming it. Just like poor whites in the American South who were inculcated with racism to suit the needs of politicians, Israel is in a sense “only a pawn in the game” (lyrics courtesy of Bob Dylan).
So the question (which can apply to all boycotts) is, why Israel? It seems a bit like cherry-picking. The U.S. has enslaved more people (particularly if you include the humungous prison population) and caused more death and suffering worldwide (including direct support for the Israeli occupation). Why not boycott all goods produced by U.S. companies? In fact, since all corporations exploit human beings (and are complicit to varying degrees with slavery and poverty), why not boycott all capitalist-produced goods? Once again, to single out Israel is to make the Jewish nation appear as the greatest evil in this world when it certainly is not.
But those questions bring me to my second point. One of the first instances of the boycott was employed by Quakers and free blacks in the United States as a reaction to slavery. At that time, it probably was not possible to see the development of capitalism, and certainly the institution of slavery was (and still is) foundational to the capitalist system. In that sense, the boycott really was aiming high. The participants did not want to personally profit off of slavery; thus, it was a general, principled stand rather than a fight against anyone or anything in particular. The problem with boycotts now is that they are directed at specific actors: a certain corporation or set of corporations. All capitalists play by the same rules. If you do not want to personally benefit from capitalist exploitation, then it doesn’t make any sense to single anyone out. In fact, it may end up just putting impoverished people in a more vulnerable position (as I once heard a Bangladeshi Walmart employee say, “But we need the jobs!”). What we need is an effective way to challenge the entire global capitalist system – a way to extricate ourselves from it and call attention to the reality of its mechanisms. When we boycott these days, we are sending the message that we are just concerned about “bad guys,” but the truth is that we are fight against a bad system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)