"As above, so below." - Old saying
The prevailing philosophy of a society is always based in justification of that society's behavior. The Christian hierarchy of God and his choirs of angels was meant to reflect the monarchy, thereby justifying the king's "divine right" to rule. But anyone whose brain hasn't been addled by fantasy novels should realize that the king has always inherited power achieved not through God, but through military conquest. However, "as above, so below" is present in all societies. It is part of a sociological justification system not too dissimilar from a personal justification system.
In my estimation, justification accounts for at least 50% of human behavior. Whether right or wrong, everyone needs to believe that they are justified for their behavior (or lack thereof). The more accomplished an individual becomes in self-justification, the more they are able to justify and the less they are aware that they are doing it. The justification process isn't linear, developing from a single issue, but rather it forms a complicated web of reinforcing beliefs. Therefore, it can be very difficult to address specific issues when they are just a small part of a tapestry. Religious and political ideologies are simply some of the most obvious examples. But social ideologies (or justifications) are inevitably reflected in the populace. One thing about ideological justification is that it is
so much easier to justify something when it is the norm, the idea being that it needs no justification because it is "common sense."
Have you ever been in a situation with your friends when you knew they were doing or saying something wrong, but just didn't want to be the outsider? That's pretty much a universal experience. It's especially common amongst groups with a large disparigy in power. Phillip Zimbardo did a study at Stanford University where he created a mock prison to test guard/prisoner behavior using a random sample of volunteers only to cancel the study after three days due to extreme adverse psychological reactions. This same behavior is exhibited on a massive scale at a lot of prisons, particularly where abuses have taken place such as Abu Graib and Guantanamo. The point is, we internalize the behavior of our society and it is very difficult both to recognize this and to act against it, if necessary.
I've been doing a study on economics, so that I can both define my "socialist tendencies" as well as defend them, and I've been increasingly of the opinion that individuals are mimicking the behavior of corporations and internalizing corporate values. As I was taking a walk at lunch, I was listening to Douglas Rushkoff on
Media Squat on my iPod when I heard him describe dot-com-ers as people who want to start a business to make as much money as possible and retire as quickly as possible... when it suddenly occurs to me, that's the American dream!
Rushkoff was advocating a different approach; that is, starting a company that you want to work for as long as possible... where retirement isn't the goal, but instead something to be avoided. This reminded of an argument I had just had with my roommate. I argued that everyone wants to make something. Maybe not the world's greatest novel, a clean burning engine, or a popular album, but maybe a house or fine furniture. Maybe they don't want to "create" in the traditional sense, but want to be surgeons, teachers, therapists, or nannies. Maybe not everyone wants to change the world, but I believe that everyone wants to look back on how they spent their time and show something for themselves.
If I worked my entire life at this job, I honestly couldn't tell you if I made the world any better. If you asked me if I took pride in my work, I would say, "Sometimes." Sure, I help some people figure out their internet problems, but I also help a lot of people listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Billy Graham, thereby indoctrinating them in the exact kind of thinking I am entirely against. Furthermore, a lot of the professionals I do work with are advertisers which, if I have not made clear, I believe is poisoning our psyches. A lot of the videos are mindless, corporate training videos which perpetuate blind obediance to the bottom line.
I'm disconnected from the value of my work, I'm depressed, and I'm not alone. We live in a post-industrial age and that means we are two degrees of separation from the value of our work. The industrial revolution segmented a job to an individual task in order to minimize the necessity for skilled laborers, who were defined as expert craftsmen who take pride in their work. Consequently, these individuals were in great demand, cost more to hire, and had a degree of control over their work. By segmenting the jobs out to uneducated laborers, the employer had full control over production and a disposable work force... but unlike the skilled craftsman, the employer was disconnected from the work. The work itself only served as means for profit. Consequently, that's what it became for the workers as well. Not being a skilled craftsman, the individual laborer takes pride in their work to the extent that it facilitates their continuing income, but like the employer, he is there only for the money.
I try to point out that the dangers of corporatism aren't just in the realm of economics. Although the current recession has been caused by flagrant corporate abuse ignored (or perpetuated) by those in power, the real dangers to society are those aspects which are internalized. By perpetuating the "freedom" of corporatism, we allow the corporate ideology to seep into every aspect of life. The fact that our meaningless jobs take up the majority of our waking hours and anchor us to a specific location are endemic of that fact... not to mention pollution, urban development, and the gradual decline of food quality.
But what this all comes down to for me is that people are more concerned with their economic needs than virtually anything else and believe that the best way to be happy is to be rich and lazy. It is a value that they have learned from all of those harsh life lessons that we are supposed to take in stride, but reinforced through countless commercials and television shows (or even movies) that serve as delivery vehicles for commercial propaganda which (I will remind you once again) is developed by trained psychologists for the express purpose of getting you to buy something whether you want it or not. The lesson repeatedly drilled into everyone is "Money can solve your problems."
This has become a get-rich-quick nation, completely pandering to the individual at the expense of the community for the benefit of the corporation. The abuse of power has become justified and normalized so that dissent with the concept of the free market is itself considered anti-American. The idea of communism or socialism has become synonymous in the American consciousness with an anti-work, anti-self-reliance, anti-meritocratic agenda so much so that whenever I hear about socialism from anyone with a closed mind, the first concern is that it would create an environment that rewards laziness at the expense of hard workers. Again, there is the assumption that the ideal life comes not from a job well done, but rather through pure laziness. This has become the American ideal. Again, I would argue that the ideal state is not unemployment without consequence, but the freedom to pursue a calling that you are passionate about. In many lives, this issue takes on a personal significance when choosing a life between fulfilling ones passions with the strong possibility of destitution or choosing an unfulfilling life making really good money.
There is fear that communism will destroy our meritocracy by making everyone the same... which seems to confuse communism with a magical wizard's talisman. I would argue that we do not have a true meritocracy and are not even remotely close to having one. As Tony Blair once said, "[Socialism] stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly." After all, how many managers do you know who got their job only because they were there long enough to get promoted? If your work experience has been anything like mine, more than not. I know too many writers who get good assignments because they take orders well, not because they are good writers. I've also seen great writers vanish from publication because they don't work well with the corporate structure. Maybe that's legitimate business decision, but it's not a meritocracy; it's a business.
I recently learned that corporate leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit
by any and all legal means. This means that if the company has a choice whether to dump 50 tons of toxic sludge in a river at no cost or dispose of it safely at a premium, the CEO can be sued for choosing the later. Similarly, insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to pay out as little as possible so their employees are told to do everything legally possible to prevent claims from being processed. Again, it's not the product, the company, the employees, or the customers that are given priority, but the money. Whether or not the product, company, employees, or customers profit is irrelevant as long as the shareholders profit. This isn't my interpretation. This is the law.
Rushkoff has a story about posting on a local community website after he was mugged. The first two responses, rather than being concerned, were replies from people angry that he posted the exact location of the incident for fear that it would bring down property values. We have reached the point where we would rather live in denial if there is a profit to be made in it. We are more concerned with our own fiscal security than the physical security of ourselves and our neighbors.
This reminded me of a Hunter S. Thompson article I once read called "A Southern City With Northern Problems." In the article, Thompson refers to a form of de facto segregation whereby (as Thompson puts it) no one is a racist, but their neighbor is. Essentially, if a black family moved into a white home, it would bring down property values so home owners were harshly condemned by the community for selling to non-whites. Not that much, though, because it rarely happened. More like the black family would be ostracized for bringing down housing values.
No one was racist. They didn't have to be. They just had to be spineless and bend to the will of the masses.
We no longer want to make society better. We just want an exit strategy. We have made our lives so intolerable that we find peace only from escape. Now, my theory is that finding peace as individuals and as a society are two very different things. Yes, we can struggle individually for our own desperate and ultimately unsatisfying hope of fiscal freedom by obeying the corporate machine or we can invest in each other. We can find ways to better ourselves by bettering each other and facilitating more ways to be involved in each other's lives.
One idea I've been hearing about lately is local currency (check out
Ithaca Hours for more info) which is designed to support local businesses through the use of custom made currency exchangeable only through local businesses. Another idea came from a co-worker who flew in from New York City a couple months ago and told me about an inner city gardening project based around recommissioning empty lots and creating a co-op to feed fresh fruits and vegetables to the community... in New York Fucking City! And it isn't theoretical. It's happening.
The point is, we are just beginning to learn how to bypass the corporate system and give back to the community. What we have to figure out is how we can restructure society to put the value of a job in its product rather than in the end result of capital. I believe this can be done by re-empowering the individual to create their own jobs. Only then will we have an economic system that is not based in indentured servitude.
How this is done, I'm not exactly sure, but setting a goal is the most vital step in any project.
Right now I'm reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, Peter Breggin's The Anti-Depressant Fact Book, and Douglas Rushkoff's Life Inc. This in addition to H.G. Welles' Time Machine and Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep.
The prevailing philosophy of a society is always based in justification of that society's behavior. The Christian hierarchy of God and his choirs of angels was meant to reflect the monarchy, thereby justifying the king's "divine right" to rule. But anyone whose brain hasn't been addled by fantasy novels should realize that the king has always inherited power achieved not through God, but through military conquest. However, "as above, so below" is present in all societies. It is part of a sociological justification system not too dissimilar from a personal justification system.
Have you ever been in a situation with your friends when you knew they were doing or saying something wrong, but just didn't want to be the outsider? That's pretty much a universal experience. It's especially common amongst groups with a large disparigy in power. Phillip Zimbardo did a study at Stanford University where he created a mock prison to test guard/prisoner behavior using a random sample of volunteers only to cancel the study after three days due to extreme adverse psychological reactions. This same behavior is exhibited on a massive scale at a lot of prisons, particularly where abuses have taken place such as Abu Graib and Guantanamo. The point is, we internalize the behavior of our society and it is very difficult both to recognize this and to act against it, if necessary.
Rushkoff was advocating a different approach; that is, starting a company that you want to work for as long as possible... where retirement isn't the goal, but instead something to be avoided. This reminded of an argument I had just had with my roommate. I argued that everyone wants to make something. Maybe not the world's greatest novel, a clean burning engine, or a popular album, but maybe a house or fine furniture. Maybe they don't want to "create" in the traditional sense, but want to be surgeons, teachers, therapists, or nannies. Maybe not everyone wants to change the world, but I believe that everyone wants to look back on how they spent their time and show something for themselves.
I'm disconnected from the value of my work, I'm depressed, and I'm not alone. We live in a post-industrial age and that means we are two degrees of separation from the value of our work. The industrial revolution segmented a job to an individual task in order to minimize the necessity for skilled laborers, who were defined as expert craftsmen who take pride in their work. Consequently, these individuals were in great demand, cost more to hire, and had a degree of control over their work. By segmenting the jobs out to uneducated laborers, the employer had full control over production and a disposable work force... but unlike the skilled craftsman, the employer was disconnected from the work. The work itself only served as means for profit. Consequently, that's what it became for the workers as well. Not being a skilled craftsman, the individual laborer takes pride in their work to the extent that it facilitates their continuing income, but like the employer, he is there only for the money.
But what this all comes down to for me is that people are more concerned with their economic needs than virtually anything else and believe that the best way to be happy is to be rich and lazy. It is a value that they have learned from all of those harsh life lessons that we are supposed to take in stride, but reinforced through countless commercials and television shows (or even movies) that serve as delivery vehicles for commercial propaganda which (I will remind you once again) is developed by trained psychologists for the express purpose of getting you to buy something whether you want it or not. The lesson repeatedly drilled into everyone is "Money can solve your problems."
There is fear that communism will destroy our meritocracy by making everyone the same... which seems to confuse communism with a magical wizard's talisman. I would argue that we do not have a true meritocracy and are not even remotely close to having one. As Tony Blair once said, "[Socialism] stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly." After all, how many managers do you know who got their job only because they were there long enough to get promoted? If your work experience has been anything like mine, more than not. I know too many writers who get good assignments because they take orders well, not because they are good writers. I've also seen great writers vanish from publication because they don't work well with the corporate structure. Maybe that's legitimate business decision, but it's not a meritocracy; it's a business.
Rushkoff has a story about posting on a local community website after he was mugged. The first two responses, rather than being concerned, were replies from people angry that he posted the exact location of the incident for fear that it would bring down property values. We have reached the point where we would rather live in denial if there is a profit to be made in it. We are more concerned with our own fiscal security than the physical security of ourselves and our neighbors.
One idea I've been hearing about lately is local currency (check out Ithaca Hours for more info) which is designed to support local businesses through the use of custom made currency exchangeable only through local businesses. Another idea came from a co-worker who flew in from New York City a couple months ago and told me about an inner city gardening project based around recommissioning empty lots and creating a co-op to feed fresh fruits and vegetables to the community... in New York Fucking City! And it isn't theoretical. It's happening.
