Authors such as George Orwell  (2003,[1949]) and Deluxe and Guattari (1983, 1987)

 have warned about the power of language to influence critical thinking and to filter reality. Orwell talks about ‘the fictional language of the state’ and describes the way in which contradictory terms are combined to give new meanings to otherwise criticized concepts, illustrating the acceptance of such language as a process he calls ‘doublethink’. Deluxe and Guattari empathize on how governments, and especially corporations, use ‘coding’ and ‘over-coding’ in order to give new meanings to particular words. Moreover, they highlight the way in which ideologies and worldviews are expressed through figures of speech, that over time (and with more use) become colloquial. Some of the examples they used were collateral damage which replaces civilian casualties or enhanced interrogation which translates to torture. 

I think the use of this type of language overtime is extremely problematic, as it separates words from their real meaning and creates a false narrative of what reality is. By engaging with the illusionary tales of progress and development that are being pushed towards us by these greater powers , we fail to address the real issues that are still boiling on the surface of our planet. Acknowledging the way in which they use this type of language can make us more aware of tension points and of where corporations and governments are in fact falling short. 

Ioana Illes (677134)

 

1)    there is the ethical dilemma of providing ‘answers’ that (to an extent, understandably) concern anthropologists/alike… 

 

2)    anthropologists/similar often provide answers through their questions, but the answers do not reach enough people (issues of academic publishing, academia itself, etc). And then some people do not wish to listen to the answers: the answers do not match their interests (profit via sustainable growth, etc), or they challenge the ‘psychosis’ of euro-western societies (psychosis produced/maintained by colonialism/capitalism, see Andrews, 2016) … and so on…

 

3)    As an answer to you, my personal thoughts/feelings is that anthropologists should stay asking questions but ramp up their disruption and public education (easier said than done, of course), particularly on matters such as these.

 

Andrews, K. 2016. The psychosis of whiteness: the celluloid hallucinations of amazing grace and belle. Journal of Black Studies, 47:5. 435-453.

Jacob Heath 685615

 

Response by Priyanka 683580

Marie I quite agree with your point on shouldn't anthropologist do more than just asking questions. I think sometimes with respect to positionality, we may not be giving enough credit to our own position and skills in the human social-network. Across articles we read there is the CSR business agenda and then perhaps there is victimised beneficiary dragged into the capitalistic circuit in the name of responsible capitalism (CSR). However, more and more  corporations are and do bring on board social-scientist. As a social scientist working in development on-ground, comes with ethical responsibility. However, our training actually offers us the unique position to understand the needs, culture perspective of the beneficiary as well as the corporate. Perhaps what we can do, is be bridges, for as ethnographers technically we also train ourselves to speak the language of each party. A little like marriage counselling. We could be informed ethical bridges with strategic directions to add back humanity to the process of development. That perhaps is what I also felt my role was to bridge the gap between on-ground reality and the board room when I worked in CSR. While of course there are boardrooms like Jacob points out that don't want to listen there are also those that do.

 

Take Fair Trade. I would not say Fair Trade is worse than the 'trade' that existed before it. But it is a corporate oxymoron: a marketized lie. 

 

when prices are good… The flexibility of the peasant household to mend and patch together a disarticulated capitalist market by stretching out their resources, self-exploiting and self-provisioning, enables them to continue producing coffee for the Fair Trade market even when it is unprofitable [for them] … (Wilson, 2010), i.e., they still suffer due to being in a market that operates through capitalism (wish to note that there are sometimes exceptions to this).

Below article was an eye opener for me at undergrad and an example of what lies behind corporate oxymorons: marketized lies:

 

Wilson, B. R. 2010. Indebted to fair trade: coffee and crisis in Nicaragua. Geoforum. 41. 84-92.

685615 Jacob Heath


Marie's response to Jacob - 
I did have the feeling that "lies, lies lies, it's all lies" is basically the gist of  the article. The term corporate oxymoron is a way for me to intellectualise the above statement and make it more penetrable in academia. Now we have a fancy term to articulate what we feel (that it's all lies) in a theoretical manner without suffering from what people could perceive as an emotional response? I don't think this article would have a better impact in academia if it just came out and said "LIARS"... I find it successful in its aims and am glad to have a workable theoretical concept with which we can denounce the lies you mention!

emperor’s new clothes; at worst a Trojan Horse cloaking the market in morality, all while companies pursue their own profit-hungry interests and avoid regulation under the guise of benefactors. Thus critics work to expose the

gap between the rhetoric of responsible capitalism and the truth about corporate

irresponsibility.” p.11

With the quote in mind, I have a few general questions:

- consider the economic model: what are the positive outcomes of capitalism? (e.g. freedom, democracy, good education, long life expectancy)

If CSR is a Trojan horse, cloaking the market in morality, which alternative model should we pursue? (Anna, 675638)

Responding to Anna

One which properly taxes corporations and demands they pay their employees a fair wage. This allows elected governments to look after all their citizens, not just those deemed worthy and for employees to have proper autonomy not rely on charity from benefactors for basics like education, health and housing.

Susie

Response to Susie

Of course, this would be the desired  scenario. I would just wonder how easily this could be translated into reality/ practice when demand, size and time frame (speed of growth) are inevitable technicalities. Therefore my question: can any large operation ever be sustainable? (Anna, 675638)

Response to all:
In terms of alternative models, one thing I've observed in my experience in the corporate world is that many organisations are still doing CSR as we've mainly been talking about it here - 'programmes' targeting specific areas, trying to 'do some good' or improve their reputation. But some (not enough) organisations have started to take honest looks at how their operations run and the social, economic, environmental impact of their work. Some of them seek to fundamentally transform how they work and are doing a lot of work that's not visible in these spaces. A lot of this has been driven by employee demand, since employees are increasingly vocal about the kinds of places they want to work. However - nearly always these 'good' efforts are typically thwarted by short term market pressures, driven by investors and stock markets. So until the model is fundamentally reconsidered - ie the power of the stock market in shaping how corporations operate day to day - real change is difficult. -Karen

 

Eloise 

“This process of individual transformation promises to ‘break the poverty culture of un-

employed people; extinguish bad traits (those behavioural patterns of South Africans that perpetuate poverty cycles) and foster entrepreneurial qualities’.”

I thought the chapters were well-written and easily digestible for someone with no background in development. Nonetheless, I would have expected Rajak to challenge and be more critical of some of these narratives. 

Hanna Arro

missionary conducting the moral work of the company'. I was reminded of some of our discussions of development workers from last term - in terms of them trying to implement a vision of 'progress' but whose notion of progress? Karen