06 September 2006
Ever feel overwhelmed?
I'm no saint. Most of my activism deals with personal lifestyle decisions and the maintenance of this blog - neither of which are perfect in their execution. Apart from a march here or a petition there or a donation somewhere else, my efforts at changing the world are pitiful. I lurch forward, making excuses, making small improvements, making the same mistakes, and wallowing in impotence and disappointment. So falling back on one of the things that may just be my strongest suit, I write here, injecting as much wit, emotion and eloquence as I can, hoping someone reads it and agrees with my opinion or follows whatever advice I can give.
With such ineffectual weapons, losing the battle against a well-armed and heavily dug-in status quo, it takes an effort not to slip back into the blissful ignorance of sheephood. The symbiosis between global corporations, corrupt governments, effective public relations, a complicit press corps, and a supporting cast of apathetic voters and insatiable consumers creates a world-devouring monster, seemingly invincible and immortal.
I get a little excited whenever I read about some little guy taking on the big boys and holding his own. Sustainablog linked to an article on Grist about a guy (Amit Srivastava) who organized the fouling of the economic relationship between the Coca Cola company and the University of Michigan in order to improve the working conditions for Coke employees in Columbia, and environmental/health conditions in India.
It's a bit of a revelation for me because this highlights the effectiveness of a different approach to activism. It may be more effective to go to the Achilles' heel in the power structure. For the media, it's ratings. For governments it's voters. But for corporations, it's the bottom line.
Ratings are difficult to influence. News outlets survive by advertising. Advertising only pays when there are enough viewers or readers to see the ads. Therefore, the news will strive to increase its audience, not by producing informative, unbiased information about happenings around the globe, but by appealing to the tastes of its audience. To simplify the process, it's easier if the media adjusts the taste of the audience to match the flavour of its content than to adjust the flavour to match their taste. It's subtle brain-washing and a manipulation that keeps supply and demand in relative sync.
Voters are also difficult to influence. Governments don't listen to protesters unless those protesters wield some power to boot them out of office and the trough of corruption that goes with it. Conservative governments will only change their tune if masses of religious zealots and businessmen hit the streets in protest. Liberal governments will only listen if labour organizations and students start to march.* If their constituents, that is, the constituents that got them into office, are unhappy, politicians will bend. Otherwise, they'll do what's in their best interest.
It seems to me that the weakest link in the chain happens to be pulling most of the weight. After all, who funds the lobbyists who contribute to governmental corruption? Who supports the think-tanks that mould policies for political parties. Who owns the Media outlets and the PR firms that sway public opinion? We live in a world dominated by capitalists. Money makes things happen very quickly. Corporations and large private companies have the run of the place, whether they know it or like it or neither.
Business needs sources of income. For most, that means customers. They can take form as many disparate individuals or better yet, as large accounts with public entities or other businesses. These large accounts are vital in that they provide a long-term, steady stream of income. Without them, businesses are at the whim of the fickle masses. Maintaining these trade alliances must be a priority.
The entities that make up these large accounts have quite a bit of sway over how the supplier behaves. If, as a major customer, a big university tells Coke to jump, it probably will. If the behaviour modification has a positive effect on their public image, that's just a happy bonus. Normally, public image problems can be handled with effective PR, so public image problems tend not to change the way a businesses behave by themselves. However, eliminating a PR problem by satisfying a customer is just good business.
It makes sense to focus activist energy on this network of business support rather than only on the businesses themselves. By encouraging a key entity in the chain of profit to act as a catalyst for change, we leverage their influence to improve corporate behaviour. A little bit of creativity will reveal these links. A university is a great example because it is made up of a large group of like-minded individuals who lean toward idealism. With the right mix of message and effective dissemination, we can amplify our voice by tapping into the values of the constituents of a large customer or strategic partner of a company.
Because of the nature of the relationship between businesses and politicians, it also makes sense to focus on the entities that support businesses rather than on the governments and international agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Once in the pocket of some business sector, a legislator will likely not heed the cries of protest from those he has committed to represent by virtue of geography. Government will always need to be nagged by a vocal opposition, but change is driven by the market. If you can manipulate the market, you can really get things done.
* I may be taking liberties by making assumptions about the driving forces behind politicians and their parties. I speak about the unavoidable side effect of democracy. Democracy is just capitalism where the currency is clout. In simplest terms Democracy and capitalism are strong partners because money can buy clout, and clout can make people rich. Whom they have clout with, and who has clout with them will determine who has their ear. Corruption is inevitable, thought not necessarily ubiquitous.
With such ineffectual weapons, losing the battle against a well-armed and heavily dug-in status quo, it takes an effort not to slip back into the blissful ignorance of sheephood. The symbiosis between global corporations, corrupt governments, effective public relations, a complicit press corps, and a supporting cast of apathetic voters and insatiable consumers creates a world-devouring monster, seemingly invincible and immortal.
I get a little excited whenever I read about some little guy taking on the big boys and holding his own. Sustainablog linked to an article on Grist about a guy (Amit Srivastava) who organized the fouling of the economic relationship between the Coca Cola company and the University of Michigan in order to improve the working conditions for Coke employees in Columbia, and environmental/health conditions in India.
It's a bit of a revelation for me because this highlights the effectiveness of a different approach to activism. It may be more effective to go to the Achilles' heel in the power structure. For the media, it's ratings. For governments it's voters. But for corporations, it's the bottom line.
Ratings are difficult to influence. News outlets survive by advertising. Advertising only pays when there are enough viewers or readers to see the ads. Therefore, the news will strive to increase its audience, not by producing informative, unbiased information about happenings around the globe, but by appealing to the tastes of its audience. To simplify the process, it's easier if the media adjusts the taste of the audience to match the flavour of its content than to adjust the flavour to match their taste. It's subtle brain-washing and a manipulation that keeps supply and demand in relative sync.
Voters are also difficult to influence. Governments don't listen to protesters unless those protesters wield some power to boot them out of office and the trough of corruption that goes with it. Conservative governments will only change their tune if masses of religious zealots and businessmen hit the streets in protest. Liberal governments will only listen if labour organizations and students start to march.* If their constituents, that is, the constituents that got them into office, are unhappy, politicians will bend. Otherwise, they'll do what's in their best interest.
It seems to me that the weakest link in the chain happens to be pulling most of the weight. After all, who funds the lobbyists who contribute to governmental corruption? Who supports the think-tanks that mould policies for political parties. Who owns the Media outlets and the PR firms that sway public opinion? We live in a world dominated by capitalists. Money makes things happen very quickly. Corporations and large private companies have the run of the place, whether they know it or like it or neither.
Business needs sources of income. For most, that means customers. They can take form as many disparate individuals or better yet, as large accounts with public entities or other businesses. These large accounts are vital in that they provide a long-term, steady stream of income. Without them, businesses are at the whim of the fickle masses. Maintaining these trade alliances must be a priority.
The entities that make up these large accounts have quite a bit of sway over how the supplier behaves. If, as a major customer, a big university tells Coke to jump, it probably will. If the behaviour modification has a positive effect on their public image, that's just a happy bonus. Normally, public image problems can be handled with effective PR, so public image problems tend not to change the way a businesses behave by themselves. However, eliminating a PR problem by satisfying a customer is just good business.
It makes sense to focus activist energy on this network of business support rather than only on the businesses themselves. By encouraging a key entity in the chain of profit to act as a catalyst for change, we leverage their influence to improve corporate behaviour. A little bit of creativity will reveal these links. A university is a great example because it is made up of a large group of like-minded individuals who lean toward idealism. With the right mix of message and effective dissemination, we can amplify our voice by tapping into the values of the constituents of a large customer or strategic partner of a company.
Because of the nature of the relationship between businesses and politicians, it also makes sense to focus on the entities that support businesses rather than on the governments and international agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Once in the pocket of some business sector, a legislator will likely not heed the cries of protest from those he has committed to represent by virtue of geography. Government will always need to be nagged by a vocal opposition, but change is driven by the market. If you can manipulate the market, you can really get things done.
* I may be taking liberties by making assumptions about the driving forces behind politicians and their parties. I speak about the unavoidable side effect of democracy. Democracy is just capitalism where the currency is clout. In simplest terms Democracy and capitalism are strong partners because money can buy clout, and clout can make people rich. Whom they have clout with, and who has clout with them will determine who has their ear. Corruption is inevitable, thought not necessarily ubiquitous.
Labels: neocon bunk
// posted by Parge @ 3:23 PM
