A Less Dogmatic Day for Jenna: Structural Roots and Short Term Fixes
In my activist orientation, I heavily emphasize the structural roots of injustice and conflict. Individual events, like the Iraq War for instance, may have particularly shady beginnings and horrific consequences, but it is our constitutional structure that gives the president his power as commander-in-chief, and his ability to veto yet another bill that sets timelines for withdrawal. In other instances, it may seem that a particular individual has “evil” intentions – on the left we are often fond of decrying the greed of corporate CEOs – and yet, undemocratic structures, like the hierarchical set-up of the corporation, beholden to absentee share-holders, give these individuals disproportionate power to exercise their unsavory motivations. More than that, unaccountable and bureaucratic structures create their own perverse incentives for bad behavior, as Michael Barnett points out in his research on international organizations. These structures ossify certain (potentially destructive) courses of action, and reflect the power of one-sided interests. In many of the activist battles that we fight, there may be “evil” people and practices to be identified, but they cannot be truly dealt with without also addressing corrupt structures. Global warming, for instance, requires a paradigm shift, rather than a few band-aid legal regulations, or exhortations to recycle more. Our production systems are linear, our culture tells us to consume as though everything was disposable, our economy is based on fossil fuel, our agriculture system is dominated by corporate conglomerates that fight against nature in order to make a quicker buck, and our political system gives disproportionate influence to those who profit from the status quo. Our very economic ideology defines the environment as an externality, or explains away its inevitable destruction as a “tragedy of the commons”. This laundry list is not meant to depress us with the scale of the problem, but to remind us that we need to think bigger, more long-term, and more radically. This is also to point out that, for the most part, I see structures doing “evil”, rather than people.
I suppose that this opening is all by way of prelude, because I am writing this primarily because I had two experiences that seemed to challenge these convictions. Last week, I went to the final showing of “The Devil Came on Horseback”, a documentary about the genocide in Darfur, at the Coolidge Theater. It told the story of Brian Steidle, a former marine, who, in his role as a military observer, was witness to the atrocities. His official mandates did not empower him to do anything to stop the suffering, but he did take plenty of pictures, and he is now devoting his life to making sure that people see them. Though I could talk to you about genocide, though I could talk about structural stresses and the dehumanizing processes, I still can never comprehend actual human cruelty. The images were so incredibly powerful, and so horrible. They show not just killing, but torture and brutality. And I am amazed – I can’t comprehend this superfluous sadism, and it makes me spend my time meditating on evil people rather than evil structures.
Connected to this event, I also had previously had a friendly disagreement with a friend (perhaps a euphemism for an argument), in which I actually had to later admit to being (partially) wrong. Those who know me may gasp; this is quite a rarity for me. In most cases, my belief that tackling the structural causes of a particular issue leads me to shy away from symbolic “awareness-raising” gestures and single-issue platforms. There are so many tragedies occurring that fighting every fire can become useless and short-sighted, and believing that solving a particular incident without expecting another to crop up is hopelessly naïve. There are some issues that absolutely must be dealt with now, such as the genocide in Darfur. Others I see as symptoms of deeper problems, or reason that I might not be particularly effective at trying to solve. You would not, for instance. Likely see me at an anti-Iraq war rally, and, in fact, I generally don’t participate in rallies at all. During the course of the disagreement, I was making a reasoned argument for exactly why I do not participate in rallies, and why I see them as relatively ineffective activist tools. And while I am still ready to stand by all those arguments about rallies, I have now realized that this belief doesn’t preclude my participation in them. Structural change, short of a revolution, is such a long-term process that, in the here and now, the work of liberals and radicals might look outwardly the same. Moreover, if radicals ignore the timely concerns of the least fortunate we are not discerning and enlightened, we are simply pompous and ineffective. It is not always action or strategy that distinguishes radicals who are fighting structural injustice, but rather their vision. This vision is not an excuse to sit on the sidelines, it is not a litmus-test to inform who we work with, but instead it carries a responsibility to participate, and to add our voices and vision to movements pushing for change, and hopefully to further inform their strategy. I suppose that this past week has forced me to somewhat check my dogmatism – to pull back at times from my grand structural picture. And perhaps, just perhaps, you might even see me at a rally sometime soon.
Jenna Allard September 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“Even so, affluenza has reached the point where government interference is necessary to control these wants…”
This statement makes me nervous. I agree that government interference will be a part of the “cure” for affluenza, but I think it needs to have more to do with controlling firms rather than people. The concept of a government controlling the “wants” of the people brings to mind several failed experiments – Cuba, for example. People have natural “wants” that for the most part are perfectly reasonable – we want to be comfortable, we want to be well-liked, we want to be happy. The problem is when unregulated firms go out and advertise, brainwash and capitalize on those wants, attaching false solutions to them. We will be comfortable if we have a big house and an expensive car, we will be well-liked if we wear designer clothing, we will be happy if we keep buying things that make us happy. Yes, now these attachments or amendments to our wants are fully internalized by the public, but I think it makes more sense for the government to go about addressing the cause of the problem – advertisement and unregulated firms, rather than the effect – a public that buys unnecessary and unhealthy products.
I like the idea of limiting options to children, but I think it would be even more effective in the long-run to limit the amount of advertising of unhealthy foods that reaches children. It’s a good first step to take unhealthy food out of school, but the children are still being inundated with advertising outside of school. Kids tend to want what they can’t have, especially when they know what it is and that other kids like it.
Lauren, I really appreciate your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. If you read on, I clearly say that the government can’t control the wants (desires) of the people directly. What I was trying to say in the phrase you commented on was that the government will be necessary to control affluenza (whether that be by a carbon tax, limiting the food options to children, or by controlling advertising–which I think is a very good point). I meant that the government (in some cases) will have to control the wants in an indirect way by controlling the causes. I should have been much more explicit in saying that. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Sorry for nitpicking about the wording, Ali. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I’m sort of having an inner debate right now about how much government regulation I want in general and I think I took it out on you!
I think it’d be cool to do something like an ad campaign to teach children about healthy consumption, a mix between regulating advertisement and regulating consumption.
I, too, find it especially interesting to consider the role of government intervention in the context of both affluenza and our country’s current financial situation. We live in a country that very much values capitalism and individualism. Many people are very wary of government intervention and its potential to “rob” the individual of rights and infringe upon our personal freedoms. With lingering Cold War-era taboos against communism and socialism, some people look very negatively upon the notion of government control. However, I believe that the government should hold the fundamental role of acting in the best interest of its citizens. In that context, the government should step in and enact programs that promote the overall well-being of the people. I agree that, in fighting against affluenza and strengthening our country’s economy, government action is necessary and has the potential to bring about a great deal of positive change.