Jul 05 2010

The Corporation – Joel Bakan

Category: Politics,The Media,World AffairsJonathan @ 6:19 pm

A few years back I watched the excellent documentary film version of The Corporation, but had always intended to read the book, which I finally got around to recently.  I can honestly say that I’m glad I did, not because the film isn’t as enjoyable, far from it, but because they compliment each other so perfectly, with the book going into detail on topics for which the film barely scratches the surface.

Joel Bakan is a Canadian lawyer and author, Professor of Law at the University of British Columbia, he holds a Masters degree from Harvard University and has a solid background in Canadian constitutional law. In The Corporation, his objective is to chart the history of the corporation, it’s unique structure and legal positioning, along with exposing some of the obvious flaws which exist within the idea of a corporate entity.

Bakan begins by giving us a whirlwind history of the development of the corporation as an institution. This history features the ‘jobbers’, stockbrokers who prowled the streets of Exchange Alley in London back in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The jobbers would search out naive investors, and persuade them into purchasing shares in bogus companies. Speculation initially caused the share price for these companies to rocket, followed by a total collapse. Bakan states that many soon became suspicious of corporations, with their separated ownership and management, instead preferring the ‘partnership’ model based on mutual trust and loyalty. This distrust of corporations lead to the English Parliament issuing a ban on corporations in 1776, which lasted for around 50 years.

The rise of corporations was assisted by the development of railways, mining, and industrial machinery, all of which relied on massive investments of capital. The partnership slowly went out of fashion as many realised the corporation was a far more efficient method to raise the massive amounts of money required for projects such as these. Bakan discusses the concept of ‘limited liability’ introduced around 1850, the idea being that an investor should only be liable for the amount they had invested in the company, rather than being personally liable for the companies debts, this allowed many more (and for the first time, the working class) to purchase stock.

One of the major themes in the book is the gradual increase in corporate power. One main event in this history was the development of the corporate ‘person’. By the late nineteenth century, corporations had begun to inherit the same legal status as a flesh-and-blood human being, allowing a company to own materials, employ staff and pay taxes just like a regular person, with the added benefit of possessing the same legal protections which any other citizen may enjoy.

In 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled the ‘New Deal’, an economic plan which included a set of reforms to restrict the power of business. Whilst I knew a little about the New Deal before reading this book, I was completely unaware of the plot hatched by the business leaders of the time to attempt a Coup on Roosevelt, in an effort to remove some of these restrictions and impose a business-friendly fascist regime, the type of which were currently developing in Germany under Hitler, and in Italy under Mussolini.

The embracing of neoliberalism in the 1980′s by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan allowed both Britain and the United States to begin to unravel some of these restrictions on business, and with the advent of globalization and the formation of the WTO, companies were now free to look around the world for the best possible economic conditions, resulting in poorer wages for developing nations, and higher profits for the corporation’s shareholders. Bakan argues that at around this time government to some extent lost control over businesses, with the (corporately influenced) WTO also enforcing unethical policies which government has very little say over. Add to this a group of politicians more heavily reliant on corporate donations to get elected, and it becomes evident that government loses a fair amount of it’s regulatory power.

Through lobbying, political contributions, and sophisticated public relations campaigns, they and their leaders have turned the political system and much public opinion against regulation. The law’s ability to protect people and the environment from corporate harm has suffered as a result.

One of Bakan’s most interesting observations is concerned with the relatively new trend of corporate ‘social responsibility‘. This can take several forms, from a company sponsoring the local football team, maintaining the local neighbourhood, or donating money to charitable causes. Obviously these displays are frequently for PR purposes, or are used purely to persuade consumers that their products are ethical, and should be purchased above all others. Bakan states that if these tactics did not result in greater profits for the company in question, the actions would technically be illegal, under corporate laws which designate that maximizing profits for shareholders is the primary responsibility of management. This reminded me of an article I read in the Guardian a few years ago, which told the tale of the writers young child, who was busy reading the label on a bottle of water which stated that for each bottle purchased, the company would send 1 litre of fresh water to a developing nation. The child questioned, with a wisdom and clarity far beyond that which any adult could display: ‘Why doesn’t the company just send the water anyway, whether I buy it or not?’.

Corporate social responsibility holds out promises of help, reassures people, and sometimes works. We should not, however, expect very much from it. A corporation can do good only to help itself do well, a profound limit on just how much good it can do.

Bakan then raises the concept of ‘externalities’, costs which corporations attempt to avoid by shifting them elsewhere. To illustrate he tells the story of Patricia Anderson, whose family suffered horrific burns after a car shunted the rear of her own at a set of traffic lights, and her petrol tank ignited. Anderson sued General Motors, and was eventually awarded $107 million, with punitive damages of $4.8 billion. Why so high you might wonder? Well, the car in which Patricia Anderson had been driving was designed with it’s petrol tank just 11 inches from the rear bumper. This was in spite of the fact that GM’s own internal safety guidance suggested the tank should be at least 17 inches away, if not further. To change the positioning of the tank would have added an estimated cost of $8.50 onto each vehicle, so the company instead calculated how many fatalities this design flaw might cause, multiplied by the average payout to the families of each victim, and came out with a figure of just $2.40 per car, a massive saving. Hence the car was not redesigned, and the accidents were allowed to happen. Deeply shocking. Obviously this is an extreme example, but that doesn’t hide the fact that cost-benefit analyses such as these are now performed on almost everything we consume.

The corporation’s unique structure is largely to blame for the fact that illegalities are endemic in the corporate world. By design, the corporate form generally protects the human beings who own and run corporations from legal liability, leaving the corporation, a “person” with a psychopathic contempt for legal constraints, the main target of criminal prosecution.

Something which particularly caught my attention in the light of Education Secretary Michael Gove’s recent announcement of the creation of ‘Free Schools’ was Bakan’s observations on the privatization of education. This appears to be another area where corporate donation to political parties holds great sway in deciding how contracts are awarded, and where funding is secured. The book argues, as many have done again fairly recently, that these schools do not necessarily perform any better then their public counterparts, although Bakan states that this isn’t necessarily the largest threat they represent. In the early 2000′s, Edison schools – a private American education provider – saw it’s stock price drop from over $22, to just $1. Various cost cutting measures began, with Edison’s administration staff moving into the schools to save money on office space, and the company quickly sold off school textbooks, computers, lab supplies, and musical instruments.  An example which demonstrates that applying laizze-faire economic theory to education rarely works, a lesson which Mr Gove should certainly bear in mind over the next few years.

On a closely related topic, the commercial exploitation of children and the ‘Nag Factor’ are also areas placed under the spotlight. Targeted advertising, directly to children, is in my opinion highly unethical, but is yet again another area where government has relaxed the rules, and deregulated at the expense of children’s health and mental well-being. Movie tie-ins, sponsorship of local community organisations, and even freely supplied school curriculum kits (which use the Big Mac to illustrate the four food groups) are removing parents control over their kids in ways never before seen. It also severely diminishes parents ability to safeguard children from harmful corporate influences.

In the final chapter of the book, Bakan accepts that whilst the corporation isn’t going anywhere fast, there are some useful ways we can limit it’s power and influence over us.

No one would seriously suggest that individuals should regulate themselves, that laws against murder, assault, and theft are unnecessary because people are socially responsible. Yet oddly, we are asked to believe that corporate persons – institutional psychopaths who lack any sense of moral conviction and who have the power and motivation to cause harm and devastation in the world – should be left free to govern themselves.

He makes several suggestions as to how this shift could take place. Firstly, improving the regulatory system, by means of stronger government control and effective enforcement, enabled by well staffed regulatory departments, and fines which act as a genuine disincentive against breaking the rules, rather than simply an additional cost for corporations to factor into their business plan. Secondly, the strengthening of political democracy, with a move towards publicly financed elections and a reduction in corporate lobbying. Thirdly, the protection of assets too important to be moved into private hands, such as police, schools and fire-fighters. Finally, he suggests that nations should work together to shift the policies of organisations such as the WTO, IMF and the World Bank, away from market fundamentalism, deregulation and privatization. Where these measures fail within a particular nation, or are ineffective, Bakan raises the story of the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Subject to the selling off of their water system (an agreement which went as far as banning them from collecting rainwater on their own property) the citizens organized and protested. Bloody confrontations ensued, as the people of Cochabamba demanded that the company leave, which under substantial pressure from a concerned and volatile public, they promptly did.

I can highly recommend The Corporation to anybody with an interest in politics, economics or social justice, and I was quickly hooked after reading the first chapter. If you’re short on time, I would recommend the documentary version, which does an excellent job of condensing the majority of the book’s topics into just a 140 minute DVD.

Hopefully I’ve given you all some food for thought there, so if anyone reading this has any comments or questions, feel free to leave a message below!


Apr 13 2010

Free to be Human

Category: Books,Personal,Politics,The Media,World AffairsJonathan @ 5:40 pm

Following on from my previous review of the MediaLens book ‘Guardians Of Power’ I decided to take a look at one of David Edwards’ earlier titles, entitled ‘Free to be Human’. The book was first printed back in 1995, and deals with the subject of personal freedom, specifically that “there is no greater obstacle to freedom than the assumption that it has already been fully attained”.

Edwards begins the book (as he and David Cromwell did in Guardians of Power) with a description of the propaganda model devised by Chomsky and Herman, but the similarities between the two works essentially end here. Edwards then begins to widen out the propaganda model to encompass the myriad of different areas where we face a constant barrage of control and manipulation, and where views are filtered to fit the state and business interests. Whether it be in our personal lives, our religious beliefs, or our ethics. Edwards relies not on simple ‘conspiracy theory’ or other shallow explanations, but to the systemic ‘filtering’ of unwanted ideas and opinions described in the propaganda model itself.

Edwards bases many of his ideas on Buddhist teachings, something which I admit I had my concerns about beforehand, although I can safely say that my initial misconceptions around Buddhism were soon shattered, as I realised that Buddhism is a world away from the conventional theistic religions, the ultimate goal being personal enlightenment, rather than belief or worship of a spiritual God.

Edwards uses many examples throughout the book, the most interesting in my opinion being the desolated day-tripper, a man who sets off on a day trip with his family, and then becomes overwhelmed with fear when he realises that he cannot explain why he is taking the trip. Edwards then takes us through this man’s life, looking at how his mind has been moulded from birth to conform in our society, and how the sudden realisation of his dissatisfaction with life manifests itself.

Edwards reserves special (and very accurate) criticism for our profit-driven capitalist system. A system which, as he points out elsewhere in the book, is concerned not just with satisfying (essentially false) needs and desires, but of creating the very dissatisfaction it aims to cure:

The forbidden truth is that we are living by a set of lies which are necessary for short-term profit, at the expense of human physical and psychological life and global environmental integrity. We are living in a system where power ensures that the requirements of profit take priority over the requirements of living things – including to know that this is the case. Consequently our freedom extends as far as, and no further than, the satisfaction of these requirements, with all else declared neurosis, paranoia, communism, extremism, the work of the devil,or Neptunian nonsense.

In addition to criticism of capitalism as a whole, Edwards has many excellent points to make about the damaging effects of the beauty industry and their exploitation of post-war feminism in the pursuit of profit. He states that the emergence of diet articles and plastic surgery have contributed to an increase in physical and mental disorders, as well as a great distortion in the way women have come to see themselves, and is a perfect example of the mass media’s power to manipulate. (For example, he quotes from Naomi Wolf’s book ‘The Beauty Myth‘, which states that between 1966 and 1969, in direct correlation to the media’s new fixation on thinness and perfection, the number of women who perceived themselves as being overweight rose from 50% to 80%.) I was also fascinated by Edwards’ suggestion that the literature we now perceive as important to society, for example Shakespeare and Orwell, may also be a product of the filtering system, in that unpopular historical works may be suppressed entirely, or not published at all, whereas literature which supports the dominant classes or the current socio-economic system is exalted as ‘classic’.

Edwards also discusses the indifference with which most of us treat conflict, poverty and inequality around the world, and how we now tend to psychologically distance ourselves from these horrors, remaining passive to atrocities such as the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. One of my favourite quotes in the book comes towards the end, where Edwards discusses the sometimes absurd rationalizations we create when something we are told, which in essence makes perfect sense, conflicts so completely with our ingrained beliefs and learned knowledge:

Having chosen one of these rationalizations, moments later we can be settling back in our chairs in the office, or in the pub, or in front of the TV, feeling as ‘comfortably’ as part of the ‘real’ world as before. We will have avoided conflict and disruption in our individual, familial, social and career lives; we may have avoided confronting the waste of years, or decades of effort and striving for a deluded dream in a profoundly immoral and brutal system. (The cliché of the transformation of young socialist into old conservative is not a change from idealism to pragmatism but from rationality to rationalization.) The cost of surrendering our reason to rationalization is that we will tend to reject ideas that allow access to a coherent understanding of the world, including it’s problems, including our problems.

In chapter three, Edwards criticises the belief in a cosmic father-figure (CFF), inherent in the great monotheistic religions, and then concludes that Atheism is just as dangerous because it provides ‘believers’ with the same certainty and security. This certainty then removes our need to look for answers to life, as our belief makes asking these questions unnecessary. Whilst I cannot argue at all with his reasoning on this point, Edwards then goes on to suggest that Atheism forms part of an ‘Unholy Trinity’ along with ‘Progress’ and ‘Consumerism’. Edwards’ reasoning appears to be that since Atheism does away with all spirituality, and emphasises the ‘pointlessness’ of existence, that consumerism and the idea of ‘having fun’ and satisfying our lusts will naturally take over as a result.

This was one area of the book were I did have some slight reservations. Whilst I would not argue that Atheism does have potential to fuel consumerism, I would counter that this is true of most mainstream beliefs. Therefore I can’t quite understand the assumed link between the three members of this ‘Unholy Trinity’ and why this is exclusive to Atheism.

I emailed Mr Edwards to congratulate him on an excellent piece of work, but also to question this link between Atheism and Consumerism. He very kindly responded with the following comments:

Incidentally, by “atheism” I really meant the assumption that life is ‘meaningless’, a happy (or unhappy) accident, that ethical norms are intellectual inventions with no grounding in anything beyond personal opinion, and so on.

To be sure, theistic religions have often been at the heart of systems of exploitation and violence, but they’re more useful for promoting servility and deference, less useful for promoting unrestrained hedonism. After all, they have traditionally (at least nominally) emphasised restraints on behaviour. Modern atheism promotes ‘Do as you please so long as you can get away with it.’ But that of course does not mean that theists are not often hedonists, or that theistic religions cannot also promote consumption.

My point was that atheism is really perfect for our kind of unrestrained consumer society where all values are subordinated to profit (as a matter of legal obligation for corporate managers). It also satisfies our conceit that we are scientific, rational creatures who have moved beyond all superstitious religious dogma. In fact there is no greater superstition than belief in the intrinsically existent self or ‘I’ – the new god at the centre of the materialist universe.

- Email from David Edwards  (22nd April 2010)

Free to be Human must rank as one of my favourite books, I doubt that any other author has sparked so much thought about my own existence and way of living, and I certainly see some aspects of myself in the desolated day-tripper, as I’m sure most people would. I can highly recommend this book as an effective antidote to the largely hidden ‘filtering’ system operating in the world today, and I will certainly be looking into the rest of Edwards’ work.

Update 22/04/10: Article updated with comments received from Mr Edwards.


Dec 12 2009

Guardians Of Power – medialens

Category: Books,Politics,The Media,World AffairsJonathan @ 12:05 pm

Apologies if it’s been a while since I’ve written anything on here, I recently started studying an introductory Social Sciences course at the Open University, which has probably been taking most up the free time I would normally have used to write articles for this website, but I’m back for now…

Guardians Of Power – David Edwards & David Cromwell

gop-mlBefore I review this book, I’d like to give a little background to medialens and what they do. Medialens is a ‘UK-based media watch project’ who publish informed criticism of media bias and censorship, revealing the distorted view of the world which mainstream media often provides. Run by the aforementioned Edwards and Cromwell, they publish weekly media alerts and base their work on Chomsky and Herman’s 1988 book ‘Manufacturing Consent – The Political Economy of the Mass Media’. In addition medialens also encourage their readers to challenge individual journalists on their work, something which has gained them some enemies in the past. However they are also influenced by the Buddhist view that ‘while greed, hatred and ignorance distort reason; compassion empowers it’, which hopefully provides us with the means to create a peaceful society, along with a fair and balanced media.

This, their first book, represents a compilation of their media alerts on a wide range of subjects.They start by giving some background on Chomsky and Herman’s ‘Propaganda Model’ of the media, on which the project is based, along with some examples of how ownership and advertising can play a huge role in what we actually read. Here’s wikipedia’s brief summary:

The propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that alleges systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes.

It views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product — readers and audiences — to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the people. The theory postulates five general classes of “filters” that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are: ownership of the medium, the medium’s funding sources, sourcing, flak and ‘Anti-communist ideology’. The first three are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

The authors make it quite clear that advertisers and owners are able to exert a high-level of control over their publications. In addition the pressure to retain advertisers, which medialens quote as providing 75% of their revenue, can necessitate self-censorship along with helping to decide which stories get coverage in the first place. For example, a newspaper may decide to omit any mention of carbon dioxide emissions from air travel if today’s edition also features a large cut-price flights promotion. A frightening thought indeed, but one which does occur frequently, largely unnoticed.

In coverage of news events, medialens ignore the right-wing and go straight for the UK ‘liberal’ media, beginning by exposing systematic failings in coverage of the Iraq war, along with the sanctions that preceded it. Their exchanges with former UN assistant secretary-general Denis Halliday and his criticism of the way in which sanctions were reported in the media were enlightening.

Their alerts covering the build up to the 2003 Iraq war again demonstrate how little a threat was posed by Saddam Hussein and his ‘weapons of mass destruction’, along with discussion of how certain (highly-qualified) voices were sidelined if their views didn’t quite match up with those of the establishment.

The book also features chapters on Afghanistan, Kosovo, climate change and the fight for independence in East Timor. All of which are truly excellent pieces of work. Towards the end the book makes a slight detour, concluding with suggestions for how the media can become more compassionate. The story of Helena Norberg-Hodge’s visit to the residents of Ladakh in Northern India really interested me, in that their way of life allowed them to be so happy and emotionally healthy whilst living in relative poverty, unaffected by the egotism and consumerism of the west.

I opened this book at 9am one day and quite honestly could not put it down until I’d finished it, it’s a fabulous wake up call to anyone who believes that we possess a honest and unbiased mainstream media. A second book was released this year called ‘Newspeak in the 21st Century’ and I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

I’d highly recommend that everyone visit the website and read some of their excellent work, subscribe to the weekly medialens alerts, and donate if you can.


Aug 16 2009

Propaganda

Category: Books,Politics,The MediaJonathan @ 8:32 pm

A while back, after watching Adam Curtis’ fantastic ‘Century of the Self‘, a documentary focusing on the rise of individualism in modern society, I purchased a copy of Edward Bernays’ book ‘Propaganda‘. The story of Bernays’ life, as told in Century of the Self, is almost as fascinating as his work.

propaganda-coverBernays was born in Austria in 1891, and was nephew of the renowned psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Bernays went on to become the father of modern Public Relations, and pioneered many of the PR techniques still in use today. Although rather than exploiting his uncle’s popularity, things surprisingly worked in the opposite direction, as at this time Freud was almost unknown outside his native Austria, and Bernays was to be instrumental in popularising Freud’s theories in the US, as they were inherently linked to Bernays’ own work within PR.

One of Bernays’ most famous successes was to break the taboo on women smoking. Whilst working for the American Tobacco Company in 1929, he staged a PR event to launch his so-called ‘Torches of Freedom’ campaign, which attempted (and largely succeeded) to convince women that smoking was a symbol of independence and freedom, and a protest for equality in society.

His book ‘Propaganda’, although written in 1928, is just as relevant today as when it was published, and although some of the examples are slightly dated, the basic principles of public relations remain almost unchanged to this day.

Bernays firstly documents the history of propaganda and it’s usage by governments around the world, and explains why the phrase itself fell into disrepute, mostly due to it’s heavy usage by the German’s in the first world war. Bernays believed that manipulation of the masses through PR was essential to create a properly functioning society:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Two of Bernays’ techniques interested me greatly, and can be spotted as a common fixture in today’s advertising-driven culture. The first was the theory that it was necessary to sell the ‘need’  for a particular product, rather than the product itself. He gave the example of a business struggling to sell pianos. Now, rather than advertising the piano itself, Bernays created the idea of a ‘music room’ which people could set aside within the home, he then organised to fill the publications of the day with features on the benefits of the music room, and ideas for furnishing such a room. This would inevitably create the ‘need’ for the piano to fill the space set-aside for it in the newly created room, and so vast swathes of the public had been manipulated into purchasing a product they essentially didn’t need, without even knowing it.

The second of Bernays’ techniques revolved around using a person in authority, who the public would inherently trust, to influence their purchasing decisions:

Suppose the old type of salesmanship, acting for a meat packer, was seeking to increase the sale of bacon. It would reiterate innumerable times in full-page advertisements: “Eat more bacon. Eat bacon because it is cheap, because it is good, because it gives you reserve energy.” The newer salesmanship, understanding the group structure of society and the principles of mass psychology, would first ask: “Who is it that influences the eating habits of the public?” The answer, obviously, is: “The physicians.” The new salesman will then suggest to physicians to say publicly that it is wholesome to eat bacon. He knows as a mathematical certainty, that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors, because he understands the psychological relation of dependence of men upon their physicians.

This kind of technique I’m certain is familiar to most people and although the public relations business still utilises the services of trusted professionals, nowadays it seems to rely much more heavily on celebrity endorsements, which I suppose signifies the much greater role they play in our lives and the importance we place on their opinions.

Bernays was obviously a highly-intelligent man, who possessed a deep understanding of psychology, psychoanalysis and sociology which he wielded to great effect, it’s certainly a testament to his work that people are still reading it 80 years on. Propaganda is an astounding and highly enjoyable book and as I said earlier it is just as important now (if not more so) than on it’s original release. If you’re interested, the full text can be read online here and here or purchased from here.