Imagine a white guy in the American
South, say Alabama, in 1850. He's not rich, but he saves up enough
money to buy a slave. Now if the guy is "smart" – if he
has "merit" and potential for "success" – he
will figure out how much having the slave costs in terms of housing,
food, and "security," and then endeavor to use the slave in
ways that make more money than those costs. That's the whole point of
having a slave – to make more money than s/he costs. It's
capitalism pure and simple! Slavery was capitalism pure and simple!
Back then, with a frontier, a slave could theoretically run away and
find some alternative way to survive, so the owners needed to use
chains and mounted posses to keep people at work, to keep their
people profitable. Nowadays, the frontier is gone; there's nowhere to
escape the global plutocratic management of population for profit.
The owners don't have to officially enslave people who have nowhere
else to go (or who think they have nowhere else to go). It's a
captive population. That's the reality of modern life – unless you
have a big chunk of money to live off of, you have to work for money
to survive. That's modern life and it's not in any meaningful way a
"choice." We never get to vote on it. So: modern capitalist
life was built on slavery and in real and significant ways it
continues to depend on relations organized for profit that are
practically identical to slavery. It's a dreary situation. But we can
create benevolent paths away from where we are – one of the first
steps is acknowledging the fundamental theoretical, practical, and
moral problems that infect capitalist modernity as a way of
organizing society and everyday life.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Finding Like-Minded People p.1
TWO
PROPOSED CORE VALUES FOR A COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE LOOKING TO MOVE BEYOND
MODERN CAPITALISM AS A WAY OF LIFE
"MORALITY"
Morality
– the question of what it means to be a good person – is a
*social* issue – it's about how you treat other people, how you
consider the effects of your actions on others. Proposed value: good
citizens and decent people strive to live by the following principle:
do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or whoever you
care most about in the world). In other words, a person acts morally
when she treats others with the same respect and consideration with
which she would want her loved ones to be treated. This 'golden rule' demonstrates
that morality ("the way a person should act") is about
relations with other people; it's *social*. Morality is not a code
laying down specific "don't dos" and "do dos" in
order to be a good person. If someone personally or as part of a
voluntary group wants to ALSO live by some code of ethics with strict
rules of what you can and cannot do, that's their business and they
are free to do so as long as it does not interfere with anyone else.
As a community, we have the right to expect people to act morally,
i.e., in accord with the golden rule, but good citizens and decent
people do not try to impose their particular ethical code on anybody
else who does not choose to live that way.
"EQUALITY"
Proposed
value: at birth, every human being is equally deserving of respect
and equally deserving of a society where she or he can live a good
life. This radical (at the roots) human equality plus the golden rule
means a good society should not allow power to form in ways that
would enable any one person or class of people to lord it over any
other – from the perspective of society and power, all people are
equal and should be treated equally. That doesn't mean that everyone
is equally smart or talented or whatever, just that society should
not provide ways to use those smarts or talents to gain power over
others.
(Of
course, some people do not value equality and they should not be
forced to live in communities of people who do. We should use this
value as a crucial distinction determining general groups of
like-minded people. [People who don't agree that equality is an
important value to build into our communities must want to use smarts
and talents to gain power over others. The not-explicitly-elitist
arguments against equality as a social value mostly seem to come down
to economistic propaganda about "innovation" and "growth"
that just puts a pretty face on the materialism and greed at the core
of the totalizing capitalist consumer society we are currently
laboring through. But in any event those who don't value equality
should be free and encouraged to have their separate communities of
people who don't value equality].)
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Cultural anthropology's place on the map to democracy
Cultural anthropology in a nutshell: Human life occurs in group realities, lived systems of concepts and practices, meanings and activities, that lay out the structures and contents of worlds of experience. The worlds of experience built out of meanings and practices that we occupy and enact include forms of agency and personhood, general structures of intention and desire, general conceptions of self and others, and the social and physical terrain of everyday life. We are socialized into group realities, with their particular systems of concepts and practices, which we then produce and reproduce as we enact ourselves and live our everyday lives using the available symbolic and material resources. Sociocultural realities (group enactments of worlds of experience and practice) are potentially (and usually) constituted with various forms of inequality and domination built in. Building inequality into daily life generally benefits the privileged by making it hard to see from the inside, where the inequality may appear "natural." Thus, people can enact inequality, as either privileged or subordinated, as they enact everyday life, without being fully aware of what they are doing.
Anthropology thus raises (but tends to avoid addressing too clearly) the question of what we can do about the realities we live in. Does having a good higher-order theory of human reality, language, and power enable us to develop a better 'language-practice' that could facilitate the construction of better realities, based not on power concentration but on democracy, freedom, time, love, or whatever other values groups of like-minded people decide are best for them at any given moment? I don't see any good reason not to be optimistic, to believe (even as faith if necessary, as it probably is) that groups of humans acting in good will have the capacity – the freedom and the ability – to create much much better ways of living than we've got going now.
Anthropology thus raises (but tends to avoid addressing too clearly) the question of what we can do about the realities we live in. Does having a good higher-order theory of human reality, language, and power enable us to develop a better 'language-practice' that could facilitate the construction of better realities, based not on power concentration but on democracy, freedom, time, love, or whatever other values groups of like-minded people decide are best for them at any given moment? I don't see any good reason not to be optimistic, to believe (even as faith if necessary, as it probably is) that groups of humans acting in good will have the capacity – the freedom and the ability – to create much much better ways of living than we've got going now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)