This seems to me to
have real relevance to my recent diatribes on Dick Smith and other
big 'philanthropists' making symbolic gestures of benevolence while
having accumulated wealth on the backs of working poor. Dick Smith is
a particularly good example because he appears so benevolent through
so many aspects of his life – his political participation and his
charity.
First, I'd like to
think through what is happening with this 'charitable' gesture. Dick
Smith and his wife see, from their train window, a young girl
apparently so poor she can't afford clothes. They determine to offer
her a better future. Rather than postpone a trip home, work through
local organisations or attempt to use local experts (or even
film-makers) to assist them, they employ an Australian film-maker to
track down the girl and present her with their life-changing offer.
They are bemused at the reluctance of local people to engage with the
Western film-maker, but eventually track down the girl and begin
changing the life of her and her family.
This does not strike me
as a charity, it strikes me as publicity. Why engage a film-maker?
Who has no experience of the country or the language? Even in the
unlikely event that the film-maker, and assistant, were not being
paid, how much were the expenses incurred in sending them over to
India to undertake this excursion? There are a host of better
candidates, including some who may have been able to point out that
there could have been unintended social and psychological
ramifications from this act of charity.
(I also have very
little patience with the bemused attitude displayed. If a stranger
came up to my neighbours with a photo, naked or otherwise, of my
daughter, I hope they would call the police, rather than point her
out to them.)
Further, apart from
stereotypes that this confirms of the poor brown girl dependent on
white male wealth, I also think we need to interrogate how genuine
the gesture is, by looking at the source of the wealth. A
businessman, dealing with electronics doesn't seem particularly
exploitative – in fact, it's not. It isn't in the more problematic
fields of say mining or timber. Yet, by examining the chain of supply
that ultimately ends up in his wealth, exploitation undoubtedly
occurs – one that we as consumers almost intentionally refuse to
see. Even if we assume he has a 'right' to a return to risk-taking
behaviour, is this really more of a risk than that faced by the
workers in electronics factories in China faced with a lottery of
safety conditions? The risks of those who mine the minerals necessary
to the working phones and computers we all rely on.
So how could he have
done things differently? And still offered consumers the satisfaction
they want?
Perhaps, rather than
creaming off super-profits, that money could have been put into the
factories where the goods being sold were made, to improve
'efficiency' while improving the living standards for the workers,
making them model factories to work in.
What would the
consequences of this been in terms of downstream effects? What would
have been the effect on the children of the workers, on other workers
and other factories? Surely all far better consequences than spending
money to send a team of film-makers to India in order to provide for
one girl for the rest of her childhood?
Further, the commitment
to increased social justice would almost certainly have had paybacks
in terms of consumer loyalty, at least among certain segments of
society.
I think it's also
important that we think hard about what we term 'ethical' behaviour.
We live in a world where ethics seems to be strangely divorced from
everyday life, particularly in as far as everyday life is determined
by purchasing decisions. In the not-so-distant past, food was imbued
with ethics. It was the sacred nature of food that was celebrated in
near-global rituals of thanksgiving, at harvest, and at meals.
Consumption as partaking of the divine, not the mundane. But today's
consumer society cannot afford to think in those terms, of the
origins of what is consumed, whether of food or other goods. Yet, the
costs of this 'lack of affordability' are real, even if they are not
directly borne by the consumers themselves. Is it really ethical to
live a life where you are able to devote massive resources to
improving the life of one family, while those who produce the goods
that allow this largesse receive only marginal benefit?
Further thoughts, more
related to the reading....
1. Laclau and Mouffe
say that in order to deal with the antagonisms raised by the defining
idea of democracy, that of equality (which I have no argument with),
then we need to deepen democracy. This does not mean that we need to
deepen democracy as it exists today. The assertion that democracy as
it exists today (which isn't made here) can help to peacefully
negotiate constitutive differences between individuals and groups
seems to me to be blatantly absurd.
Rather, this deepening
commitment to democracy must include discussion of forms of democracy
that go beyond representative Parliamentary systems, but look at
decentralisation, a decrease of bureaucracy (which is evident in the
writings) and improved ways of negotiating difference – not
overcoming, not eliding, but finding ways by which people with
fundamentally incompatible modes of political imagination can live
peacefully, and equitably, together.
2. Would it be possible
to have a binding contract with politicians? There should be some
things (primarily negative) that if they do them, they are
automatically perceived to have resigned, that they are not permitted
to stand for public office in future, and that they have to bear a
proportion of the costs of the ensuing by-election. There should be
further 'commitments', in writing, that they will aim to achieve. If
they wish to stand for re-election, they must persuade an electoral
committee of say 25 diverse people that they have made serious effort
on these issues, or have been successful in pursuing. These contracts
could be individual or party-based. Not a solution, if such is
possible, but perhaps an interim measure...
No comments:
Post a Comment