Friday, September 24, 2010

Apparently, Some Still Think Greed Is Good ...

Today, the Wall Street sequel hits theaters. Apparently, the "Greed is good" philosophy articulated by Gordon Gecko 25 years ago still has its ardent admirers. For a perfect case in point, see this opinion piece by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on CNN.com.

On the one hand, I do have to give Brook and Ghate some credit. Many folks whom I see arguing for the advancement of the free market seem to act as if it is this wonderful, idyllic haven that allows for total freedom, which would include the freedom for individuals to develop their own moral codes. These proponents either fail to grasp or fail to mention that the free market system does set up a moral code--one of competition, adversarial relations, and the acquisition of profit, property, and capital. In a sense, these folks focus on the "free" part of "free market" without acknowledging the "market" part. At least Brook and Ghate publicly admit that the system contains and coerces people to follow a moral code.

On the other hand, Brook and Ghate are not as forthright as they could or really should be in discussing that moral code. Namely, they celebrate the industrialists of roughly 100 years ago for the progress that they produced, and they argue that big-money capitalists of the present day should be celebrated for making so much money, not for giving it away. In the end, they argue that "Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit -- if we can learn to embrace these three ideas as ideals, an unlimited future awaits." Unfortunately, they leave out that that future, while perhaps unlimited to some, is very limited to many. That time period of big-money capitalism that they celebrated also produced significant wealth gaps, exploitation of labor, and the foundations for the kinds of hegemonic control of middle and working classes that occurs today. Contemporary economic conditions and relations appear to reinforce quite readily many of those same kinds of things, with the kinds of anti-labor, unquestioning of business and capital attitudes to which so many of us have become socialized to subscribe; the continuing and increasing wealth gaps that occur both in the United States and around the world; and the many ways that business organizations hold control over people's everyday lives, both at work and in their leisure time. That emphasis on pursuit of personal profit--i.e., the idea that a society of individuals motivated by self-interest--not only reinforces, but expands the inequities already built into the system. Those who have power, capital, and authority have much fuller, greater, and more extensive opportunities to increase those things than those who don't. Thus, we get incredible wealth gaps. We also see, in the process, how oppressions on the basis of race, gender, religion, ability, and other forms of social identities are perpetuated and advanced by the very economic system that purports to espouse opportunity, as those with capital and power can use that to gain more capital and power, while those with less (e.g., women, non-white folks, non-Christian folks, non-wealthy folks, etc.) do not have such opportunities.

Meanwhile, Brook and Ghate leave out a really significant part of the equation--luck. Folks like ex-baseball executive Branch Rickey have been fond of saying, "Luck is the residue of design." There probably is some truth to that in that the more well-designed a plan is, the more contingencies it takes into account, and thus the more it can prevail through adverse situations or be in position to take advantage of serendipitous developments. On the other hand, as humans who are very limited in our capacities to see and know, we must depend on luck regardless of our designs. A poorly timed natural disaster, the development of a sudden debilitating health condition, unforeseeable incompetent or malicious actions by others, or any number of other situations can bring down even well-laid plans. Additionally, there is the element of being able to have the knowledge and foresight to design well in the first place. This involves the concept of cultural capital, as theorized by Pierre Bourdieu, which is cultural knowledge that a person who has can use to gain opportunities within a cultural system. I can work really hard and plan (i.e., design) really meticulously, but if I don't have the cultural capital to know how to take advantage of the system, it likely won't do me a lot of good. As so many of us are not raised in situations in which we can gain that knowledge as we grow up and then are so busy trying to make ends meet as adults that we don't have the requisite time to learn it once we have grown (or we're not allowed access to it based on some discriminating factors within the system), we end up unable to set up good designs and, thus, see pursuit of personal profit come to fruition--or at least as full of fruition as those who have already been given advantages.

In the end, as Brook and Ghate indicate, capitalism does invoke a moral code. It does not ultimately, though, seem to be one that's particularly consistent with a fuller, more working democracy. And, regardless of what they claim, the only "unlimited future" that I see awaiting in the system Brook and Ghate espouse is one for the advantaged, lucky few.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Douche and Turd

Recently, fed up with my choices among Democrats and Republicans, I became associated with Dan La Botz's campaign for the Senate from the state of Ohio. La Botz is running as the Socialist party candidate for the Senate seat. As part of that involvement, I was introduced to and I signed the Petition for Inclusive Senate Candidate Debates in Ohio. This evening, I and others who signed the petition received an email message from Bruce Winges of the Akron Beacon Journal. This was the text of his message:

The Ohio News Organization generally follows the structure used by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which allows for only the major-party candidates to debate. The logic is sound: In a television debate format, when time constraints limit the number of questions and answers to be heard, it is of the utmost importance that voters hear from the two candidates who are clearly the front-runners for the office. While we have and will continue write about third-party candidates when warranted, including them in debates limits Ohioans' ability to hear answers from the top candidates on issues critical to the state's future.

I wrote back tonight, nearly immediately after receiving Mr. Winges' message. This was the text of my response:

Dear Mr. Winges,

Thank you for your response to the Petition for Inclusive Senate Candidate Debates in Ohio. While I understand the logical argument that you have articulated, and it is, as you claim, "sound" from a particular perspective, it is not universally sound. Indeed, this is the logic of privilege and oppression--a logic that many, myself included, would not characterize as "sound." By this logic, those who have great advantages in society are given the opportunity to further those advantages for the simple reason that they have the advantages in the first place. In the process, to quote an old line, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Given, to echo your word, how critical this debate is, at a moment when the state, the country, and the world are witnessing a very significant set of crises that includes deep economic recession, environmental destruction, and escalation of significant and at times violent political animosities, among other things, there would seem to be no better time than now to include alternative voices to the two major parties--the very parties who have played significant roles in orchestrating the set of critical circumstances that we now face. If the Tea Party movement has shown us nothing else, it should illustrate that people on all sides of the political spectrum are not happy with the status quo of the two-party oligarchy. By not allowing alternative voices, particularly out of an argument based on the front-runner status of the Democratic and Republican candidates, you effectively help keep a pair of already aristocratically-endowed organizations in power. The debate becomes the latest in the long line of practices that hand over the reigns (pun entirely intended) to these parties through a process known as kingmaking whereby the political elites along with the heavy cooperation of media institutions, as well as cooperation of other institutions, have extremely high influence over the choices, proposals, and ideas available during an election--often to the point of determining these very things.

Additionally, this kind of practice constitutes exactly the kind of critique that candidates like Dan La Botz bring to table--namely, that the system of capitalism, with its emphasis on profit-making and the acquisition of capital, plays a significant role in reproducing power and equity differences, in diminishing the possibilities for a fuller and more effectively working democracy in which as many voices as possible can be heard, and in perpetuating the kinds of circular logical claims from within the system that keep people from getting real opportunities to see, express, or disseminate critiques that dmonstrate the problems incurred by the sytem of capitalism itself. This is what is called false consciousness and what is called hegemony in a nearly perfect nutshell, perpetuating the curtain over the eyes of the electorate, using appeals to justify unearned power differences so that the electorate--especially those of less privilege--accept these power differences, and keeping the country from finding a fuller democracy.

While I understand the argument that this is just following industry practice, I do not accept that argument. Indeed, as part of classes on culture and communication that I teach, students and I examine exactly how industry practices in all kinds of fields--especially, when we examine popular culture, within media industries--perpetuate status quo relations that perpetuate oppression. Relying on an argument of standard industry practice utilizes the kind of circular logic of oppression that is emblematic of capitalism--the kinds of circular logic to which I alluded above. Frankly, I am disappointed in your use of such a transparently flawed argument, and I urge you and your colleagues on the Ohio News Organization to reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Raymond I. Schuck
Bowling Green, Ohio


When I teach the class on political communication at Bowling Green State University, which I am doing this semester, during the first week we watch the episode of South Park from 2004 titled "Douche and Turd." In many ways, issues raised within the episode seem to relate quite readily to the above exchange. As I hope my response to Mr. Winges above conveys, I think there's more to it than what the episode of South Park suggests; however, I think the episode provides a useful starting point for discussion of concerns with the contemporary two-party system of politics in the United States. Those are exactly some of the concerns that these Ohio Senate debates will fail to address by only including the Republican and Democratic candidates.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

More Big Brother Thoughts

Last week, I posted some thoughts on the current season of Big Brother. Two days later, on the telecast on Thursday, August 26, the same kind of issue that I had addressed came up again. In this instance, when Matt was evicted from the house, during his post-eviction interview with host Julie Chen, he referred to fellow houseguest Britney as a "succubus." Instantly, Chen told Matt to "keep it clean." Matt responded by saying that the FCC allows the word, to which Chen suggested that that didn't mean it should be said on this telecast.

On the one hand, this draws attention to the inappropriateness of using some terms. So, in a way it addresses my point from my previous post. On the other hand, it does so in a way that doesn't really address the issue. Rather than simply stating that using the word is inappropriate under the same kind of "family programming" veneer that's been used on previous episodes, Chen could have allowed Matt his use of the word and then challenged his use of it, pointing out how it is derogatory toward women and how it reinforces the system of sexism in United States society.

With that in mind, I see this as a missed opportunity that ends up reinforcing the same kinds of things I brought up last week. As I mentioned, I'm very much for the liberalization of language use. To do otherwise keeps people from actually discussing and dealing with problems. In this case, Matt's use of a derogatory word is called out as inappropriate without explanation of why it might be inappropriate. All this reflects and teaches is a dictatorial kind of rule--i.e., "Don't do this because I said so." In the end, that doesn't address the systematic oppression of women that this term, along with other terms that continue to be allowed like "bitch" and "ho," reflects. In fact, given how much patriarchy has historically given the same kind of "just because" reasoning when women have attempted to challenge gendered oppression, it can be argued that this kind of treatment of use of "succubus" reinforces oppressions of many kinds (including gender) by reinforcing the idea that those with less power should not do or say things simply because those in power tell them not to, regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the reasons that those in power have for what they have commanded others to do or not to do. That, to me, seems like a very dangerous lesson--a lesson of brushing problems under the rug rather than dealing with them that leads society little of anywhere but continued hegemony, as the powerful maintain and grow their power because attention has been deferred from looking at the ways that power works, particularly as it works in oppressive manners.

I don't necessarily blame Chen here. She's asked by CBS and the producers of the show to fulfill a role within certain social and industry expectations. She's in a position where she could address the bigger issue of oppression, so it's disappointing that she doesn't. She's also, though, in a role where she could easily be dismissed should she articulate things that CBS or the show's producers don't like. Media companies, media industries, and the folks that own and run these institutions have a much higher degree of culpability. Of course, CBS is also subject to a bigger game of hide and don't seek, which is particularly acute for them since they were the network that received heavy fines by the FCC after the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson performance during the 2004 Super Bowl. So, it is political and economic systems and institutions that are creating this kind of situation. And that just seems to suggest all the more fully that we need greater and fuller analysis and critique of the system of capitalism that sets many of the rules for life in the contemporary U.S. world. Of course, with these same institutions and systems developing even greater and greater influence over schools, media, and other educational experiences on all levels, that critique becomes even tougher to express and sustain.

And, as this occurs, to quote F. Scott Fitzgerald writing 85 years ago, "so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." Perhaps, though, I should be quoting George Orwell's 1984. After all, the show does take its name from that book, and the social critiques offered by that book seem to apply so readily to the whole situation.