Journal 2
Themes of the Week:
The readings covered during this week were by Richard Appelbaum and Katherine Boo, and finishing some discussion on the Samuel Webber reading. By Monday, we had left behind the thread of discussion regarding Freud, “the other” and the function of death to re-validate life. Rather, the discussion on Webber now centered on beginning to talk about the corporation as empire, and the empire as the corporation. Particularly following this thread was the discussion of sensationalism and its function to pacify the population in a time of war. Here, a corporation and the government share a will, which is not that of the people, and enacts a system of “Manufacturing Consent,” as it were.
The trajectory of this argument begins to outline the corporation as something more than a commercial entity, but rather as an enactment of power. With Appelbaum’s article we discussed the corporate model in post-industrialist society, particularly how a “ruling economic class” was created which produces or reproduces not the means of production, in the form of physical commodity such as was the model of the industrial era, nor a resultant of production, a physical object to be consumed. Rather, the ruling economic class finds a way to produce some “intellectual property” or service on top of the infrastructure of the materialist-industrial economy: housed within buildings, working on computers, etc.
We discussed this framework from both an economic and social perspective. The economic inequality that is produced certainly has an “otherness” component to it, that is, the capitalist must disassociate oneself from that class which is subjected to the needs of the “invisible hand of the market,” that is, the question: “you enjoy buying fruit for 2 dollars/pound, right?” That, somehow in the discussion of immigration and such, there is an systemic need which leads to exploitation of that lower economic class. In this case, the capitalist can exploit the Mexican, or the Korean because that “otherness” is created.
Finally, our exposition of the corporate model, exploitation, and the “otherness” of multi-culturalism were in a way summarized by the discussion of “The Marriage Cure.” Here, it seems that the economic “ruling class” engages in a condescending discourse with the “otherness” of the ruled class. That is, the program of “The Marriage Cure” seemed to be an indicator of how the ruling class uses exploitation in a more general way. In this program, we discussed how marriage simply has a different imposed “meaning” in the context of those in poverty (as, somehow, a method of escaping it) and that of the ruling class (as the normative family unit, as part of a successful and “self-actualized” individual). Finally, we discussed the discrepancy here: the tie of the “American Dream” and marriage is simply unavailable to the poor class; marriage is treated functionally as an economic tool to escape poverty rather than a realization of happiness.
Discussion:
It seems the greatest theme of the week was that of exploitation, or a weaker idea of “only” vast inequality, particularly, how these inequalities are required for the corporate model to function efficiently. Whether it is the corporate media co-opted with the government to build sensationalism of a war and the nationalism of the empire, or if it is the exploitation of the “other”, separated by any of the differences in flag, color, or religion through globalization, or the promise of progress to the poor, of which no fulfillment of that promise is expected by the ruling economic class, all of these issues allude to a deeper concern of the corporate model: that of disrespect of the subject. In each of these cases, subjection of individuals to such systemic inequality is necessitated by the disrespect of an individual. Without a systemic disrespect, such inequality and subjection would not be tolerated. In the case of the Webber reading, this disrespect is reflexive: the corporate power is at the will of the government, or empire in order to reclaim the primacy of vision and the spectacle which in effect at once creates a docile and willing subject. A willing subject is created through the exercise of power, through the establishment of “us vs. them”, of a reaffirmation of the nation and “us” as a powerful entity. Docility is created through the treat that such protection may not always be granted to each individual. That is, through spectacular display of the state’s power, one ought not ever disobey such a power (by threat of exertion of similar power).
So, the individual loses agency in the “empire,” the marriage of state and corporate media in this way disrespects the individual, in paraphrasing “Manufacturing Consent,” it does not matter what you think, we will tell you what you are allowed to, otherwise, you may be subject to our power. Binaries such as “you’re either with us or against us” make such a threat very clear, the rhetoric of the “terrorist sympathizer” or “America hater” in order to destroy dissent: this is an exercise of state power in the form of threats.
It seems to me that the other articles are far more straightforward in their presentation, it seems to me that a casual observer can see how post-industrial globalization is structured, and how power is executed on the ruled peoples, furthermore, a careful observer can see how the dichotomy of “otherness” described above is executed and required to reproduce economic inequality. Lastly, as for “The Marriage Cure,” I see this as little more than an instance of a more general framework set up in Appelbaum. That is, we discussed much of Appelbaum in regard to domestic immigration issues, one can draw the similarities easier, it seems, with such issues of globalization, in a similar way, it seems the Boo article is discussed as a particular instance of a larger systemic framework of inequality.
Questions:
In the above discussion, is “disrespect” a strong enough word? I couldn’t think of a better word. In a power-resistance model, what is left for the individual in regard to resistance in any of these three executions of power? If we discuss that one cannot get “outside of power” and of power relationships, can systems work in an egalitarian, normalized-power manner? Perhaps, in the above discussion I have conflated two very different methods of power: that is, if one is to look at egalitarian South American socialist-democratic systems for inspiration, it is true that dissent simply is destroyed with force, nationalism is mandated, and economic equality is promised. Then, such a model cannot resolve the execution of power discussed through Webber in contrast to either Boo or Appelbaum. One must begin to ask, then, if the marriage of nationalism with economic equality that seems necessary in an anti-capitalist system requires exertion of power, of creation of modern-socialist subjects through power and control of bodies, as Foucault may discuss.