Contract and Domination, part 1

Carole Pateman and Charles Mills', Contract and Domination, is a revelation:

"By the mid-eighteenth century the British were in need of alliances with the Native [what became American] nations because of the conflict with France. Indeed, a Proclamation in 1761 stated that the peace and security of the North American colonies depended on their friendship (Borrows 1997: 261 n 39). This was  followed by the crucial Royal Proclamation of 1763, issued at the end of the Seven Years' War. John Borrows argues that the Proclamation together with the Treaty of Niagara in 1764 reaffirmed Native sovereignty. In itself the Proclamation is ambiguous; it "uncomfortably straddled the contradictory aspirations of the Crown and First Nations." But it was also central to the Treaty negotiated between the Crown and about 25 Native nations, represented at Niagara by some 2,000 chiefs. The Treaty was sealed diplomatically by a two-row wampum belt signifying peace, friendship, and mutual non-interference in internal affairs; that is to say, the sovereignty of the Native parties was acknowledged. In the 1840s Native peoples in (what became) Canada still possessed copies of the Proclamation (Borrows 1997: 160).

The Crown had set in motion a process of colonization from which it did not withdraw. However, the colonists had different ideas about both imperium and dominium. In (what became) the United Staes the Royal Proclamation brought matters to a head. The British government was concerned about the settler's continued territorial expansion and its implications for alliances with Native nations. The Secretary of State wrote that the principle of informing British policy was that "invasion or occupation of [The Indians'] hunting lands" was to cease, and possession "is to be acquired by fair purchase only" (quoted in R. Williams 1990: 235).

The Proclamation reserve the lands beyond the eastern mountains to the Indian nations, and stated that:it is just and reasonable, and essential to our interest and the security of our colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected, and who live under our protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions or territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved to them or any of them, as their hunting grounds.

Anyone who had "either willfully or inadvertently seated themselves" in the reserved lands was "forthwith to remove themselves from such settlements." The Proclamations further laid down that if Indians wished to sell land it was to be purchased "only for us, in our name [i.e., the Crown] at some public meeting or assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that purpose by the Governor or commander in chief of our colony (reprinted in Commager 1868: 48-9). Such restrictions on expansion and appropriation of land were anathema to colonial elites and the Proclamation became a precipitating cause of the American Revolution."

----

Me again:  There was always a piece of the original Boston Tea Party that didn't make sense -- why did the colonists dress up like Indians? But if the British were making alliances with Indian Nations -- and one of the main motives of the American revolutionaries was to undo those alliances so that Indian lands could continue to be confiscated, then the Boston Tea Party may have been a false flag operation, designed to provoke a rupture in the British/Indian Nations alliance. Wow.

The strangest thing in the world

For me, the strangest phenomenon in the world is the assault on the feminine.  Here I'm defining the feminine as a set of qualities that include nurturance, kindness, empathy, and compassion.  And historically (but not always), these qualities were embodied by women.  These are qualities that connect people and are the basis for love. [I realize I'm in all sorts of dangerous territory here with these definitions because they risk being essentializing, partial, or just plain untrue. So for example, is love a feminine quality or is there a masculine version of love or is love beyond gender? But that's a question for another post.] These are the qualities that provide us our greatest joy as human beings.  So then rape is not only a crime, in fact, it makes no sense at all (it should not exist, it should be beyond our capacity to imagine it) because it's the one thing guaranteed to take us farthest away from the source of love and joy.

But then the case gets even weirder -- because the Jesus story is an attempt to explain the human assault on the feminine.  Of course at this point we have to note the obvious irony that evangelical Christians in the U.S. have built their entire faith around an assault on the feminine and the deification of hegemonic masculinity.  But as far as the actual Biblical text, Jesus is the most feminized guy one can imagine in the ancient world.  While there is debate as to whether he was married to Mary Magdalene, asexual, or gay -- he was certainly queer.  He walked around basically homeless with a band of social misfits and he connected with EVERYONE regardless of their station in life.  And he gets killed by a collusion between the mob and the state (indicting both culture and institutionalized hegemonic masculinity).  While the Old Testament is trying to answer the theodicy question (why do bad things happen to good people -- Old Testament answer: it's our fault) the New Testament is trying to answer a trickier question -- why on earth do people try to quash the feminine when it is the pathway to love? Jesus being killed on the cross is a metaphor for misogyny and the mystery of societal contempt for the feminine (when it is largely defenseless, only there to do good, and for most people, the primary source of love).

And so basically I have no sympathy or interest in hanging out with people or institutions that participate in the assault on the feminine -- Republicans, masculinist (which is most) religions, capitalism, most men's movements, Wall Street, Ivy League universities, fraternities, BDSM cultures (whether straight or queer), masculinist alternative movements, etc.  In fact, my work is to undo the harm they create in the world and provide an alternative.

I fear I've simply revealed my own unique ontology here rather than shedding much light on the human condition itself. (For example, I believe that most women I know would strong disagree with my analysis here and are much more comfortable with and sympathetic to masculinity than I am.) Still, this is the question that animates me so I thought I would post it here.

The most important question?

Increasingly, I'm coming to believe that the most important question in the world is, "What do you (really) want."  And the answer to that question, the honest answer, is often unflattering.  "Control" and (the flip side of control) "to be taken care of" seem like two of the most likely answers. "To do nothing" is a likely answer among many white men (see for example, the movie Office Space).  "To be better than you" and its many variations ("to feel superior to you", "to have power over you","to appear smarter than you", "to win at all costs", "to appear important") I imagine are also common.  "To lose", "to feel weak", "to be dependent" I bet are common too.  While there is altruism and joy and good faith in the world -- its feels to me like the less flattering underlying motives are more prevalent in the world right now.  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter in the comments section below.

Marxian political economy verses Marxian ontology

I've been circling around this idea for a while but just didn't have the words to express it correctly.  But now I think I've got it.  It seems to me that:

Marxian political economy is usually quite good.  Marx and those he inspired tend to have remarkable insights into the workings of capitalism. Furthermore, Marxian theorists tend to be able to see past the smoke and mirrors of the hustle, to see things as they really are (which sets them apart from liberal and neoliberal thinkers who become so intoxicated by the film flam show that they eventually become a part of the hustle).

BUT, Marxian ontology (theory about the nature of being) is often woefully inadequate.  Marxian ontology seems to have a couple of different variations -- 1.) that capitalism is what corrupts and if we could just get rid of capitalism everything would be better or 2.) the bourgeoisie is inherently corrupt and if we could just replace the bourgeoisie with the proletariat everything would be better.

But it seems to me that 1.) capitalism is just one of many things that can corrupt; and 2.) that all human beings (regardless of what station in life they are born into) are vulnerable to corruption.

So what happens if we marry the Marxian critique of capitalism with an ontology that says that all human beings are prone to corruption, that power corrupts, and that we need checks and balances to rein in the natural human impulse towards corruption?

Re-thinking the Original Affluent Society Hypothesis

I believe it is true, as has been reported elsewhere, that indigenous people were able to meet all of their needs for food and shelter, with about 14 hours of work a week. The rest of the time they could devote to leisure, play, art, love, storytelling, what have you.  Which sounds pretty great.  (Whoa, a quick google search reveals that even this original assumption is questionable.) Whatever the number is, let's just use 14 hours for argument's sake here, the problem is as follows: when a culture that spent 14 hours a week on sustenance met up with a culture that spent 14 hours a week on sustenance + 1 hour a week making spearheads, arrows, and knife blades, the result was likely not pretty.   And if a society that spent 14 hours a week on sustenance + 1 hour on weapons-making met up with another society that spent 14 hours on sustenance + 2 hours on weapons-making, well the results there would not be pretty either.  Several points emerge from this:

1. The original affluent society hypothesis only seems to work if one has no enemies and is never likely to encounter enemies in the future (a set of conditions that does not exist anywhere in the world I don't think).  
2. The arms race has likely been going on for a long time.
3. The crazy situation that most societies have arrived at -- of spending 40+ hours a week working -- makes better sense if we realize that societies have maximized how much efficient labor is possible in a week.  Said differently, 40 hours a week makes better sense if we realize that only 14 hours are for food and the other 26 hours are for buying the very best weapons in order to  scare off enemies in a dangerous world (and that societies that go beyond 40 hours a week tend to break down because work just is not  efficient after that point).
4. The retro-romantic notion, that we can somehow go back to an original affluent society (Derrick Jensen, who I like a lot, seems to advocate this position) is a bit untenable because -- a) the arms race would just start all over again and b) the amount of (state) intervention required to prevent such an arms race from breaking out again would be so massive as to resemble totalitarianism.  

I get that those who advocate a return to a hunter gatherer society have a different ontology than I do (they assume that human nature is more peace-loving than I do).  But the history of the world suggests that human beings are prone to rather massive amounts of violence as well.  And protecting against the possibility of that violence takes a massive amount of labor (which then explains a large part of the political economy of many nations).

Bullying

Okay let me rap this down, because I just haven't seen this explained elsewhere even though it seems like common sense:

Bullying is akin to drug addiction.

• Most people do not do it.
• Everyone is susceptible to doing it.
• Some are more susceptible than others.
• It activates the same dopamine pleasure centers in the brain.
• Once you develop a taste for it, it becomes a hard habit to break.  

Okay but let's go the next step:

• Most activity on Wall Street is a form of organized bullying.
• Austerity (such as the austerity that EU bankers are forcing on Greece right now) is bullying for pleasure.
• The Republican Party is an entire political party based on bullying.
• The low prices for consumer goods and high profits for U.S. firms are often a result of U.S. bullying around the world.   

So: much of our economy, much of economic policy, and nearly a third of Americans are in the throws of this destructive behavior that is akin to addiction.

Neoliberalism as an ideology, much of the pundit class, and most academic economics departments exist to give cover to bullying. David Brooks' entire career is based on giving polite intellectual cover to bullies (and he is well compensated for his services).  

So if we were going to do something about it, what would be the steps?

Well, like drug addiction, we:

• educate people about the dangers of bullying (whether that is on the playground or on Wall Street or in Congress.);
• take steps to nip it in the bud when we see it (arresting Wall Street Bankers for their role in the housing bubble and collapse would be a good start);
• set up a system of rewards and punishments such that people are rewarded for cooperation and excluded from polite society if they show signs of bullying (anti-trust laws, Glass-Steagall before it was repealed, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are attempts to stop economic bullying through law and policy).  

Of course another way to stop a bully is to become a bigger bully.  But that just starts the whole process all over again with a different set of actors on top.  The great failures of communism in the 20th century all stem from trying to become the bigger bully and from not realizing that in addition to winning -- you actually have to change the game (by replacing bullying with intersubjectivity). The great genius of Jesus, Gandhi, and King are that they realized that in addition to winning, you actually have to change the game.  

Haiku

Capitalism is the delusion
that through domination
we can achieve immortality. 

Where I'm at

Okay so this started coming to me so I may as well write it down: 

Most of the problems of the modern world are caused by capital. Global warming, deforestation, toxic waste, mining, slavery, the global financial collapse in 2008, massive and growing inequality, sweatshops and 1300 dead in a factory in Bangladesh, food that doesn't have any food it in, the obesity epidemic, the rise of type 2 diabetes, 1 in 10 Americans on antidepressants, 11% of kids diagnosed with ADHD, most cancers, corruption of our political system, imperialism and neo-imperialism, death squads, the drug trade -- all of these are caused by capital. 

The evidence to prove that case is obvious, overwhelming, and incontrovertible. You do not have to be Marxian to understand this but apparently it helps -- Marx and the schools of thought that have evolved from his initial insights have done the best job of illuminating the problems caused by capital over the last 150 years. 

BUT, and here's the thing that most Marxians and anarchists do not understand -- getting rid of money, property, or markets does not necessarily solve these problems. Indeed the places that have tried to rid themselves of property, money, or markets (for example, the Russian Revolution, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot) have produced all sorts of horrors of their own -- genocide, famine, prison labor camps, authoritarianism, a massive system of corruption (indeed corruption IS the political system in those countries). Part of the problem is that money is a funny thing -- what is it? -- a stored symbol of value, a universal method of recording promises between unrelated parties? It's pretty tough to replace that without introducing all sorts of additional problems and complications. 

So I guess where I'm at is that many of the fiercest criticisms of capitalism are indeed correct. And also many of the fiercest criticisms of alternatives to capitalism are also probably correct. The only viable alternative that I can see at this point is the Scandinavia model -- capital is allowed to do its thing, but it is controlled and directed towards more socially useful purposes through massive taxation, financial regulations, currency controls, taxes on financial transactions, etc. (I get that not all of these measures are in force at one time depending on the country). But capital is always the genie that gets out of the bottle, that figures out how to spill beyond its container in ways that poison the entire system. I'm open to other alternatives, I'm just not seeing them yet. (I guess zero growth economics looks promising too, but it's still so new that I don't fully understand it yet).

The not so subtle dog-whistle of the term "Islamist"

Okay, I've got a beef with the word "Islamist." LOTS of respected news organizations use it -- from the NY Times to Smithsonian Magazine. It is supposedly used to differentiate fundamentalist-Muslims-who-want-to-hurt-us (the Islamists) from moderate and liberal Muslims. But my sense is that the term "Islamists" is a code word for "it's okay to kill these guys." We do not have a corresponding term for fundamentalist Christians, Buddhists, Jews, or Hindus. Either we should start dividing up all religions between their violent fundamentalist wing and their more moderate wing using the "ist" construction (Christianists, Buddhistists, Judaists, Hinduists, etc.). Or we should drop the term altogether and treat people as individuals according to their actual words and deeds.

I need crowdsourcing help with a question about Cambodia

As many of you know, I'm a huge fan of James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds (I've written about the book here, here, and here). One of the great things about the internet in general and blogging in particular is that it sometimes enables one to harness the wisdom of the crowd.  Sometimes a reader will leave a comment that adds an insight or that bit of data or a link that blows one's mind -- that one could not have found through traditional search methods. I don't have as many readers as I used to as a result of not keeping up with my blog (during graduate school).  But I have a question that I very much need help with.  So I thought I would send it out into the world and see what comes back.  

Here is the question that I could use your help to answer:

On page 325 of the paperback (1998) edition of Elizabeth Becker's brilliant book, When the War Was Over, she writes:

"Like the Eastern Zone cadre who escaped to Vietnam once they understood they were scheduled for extermination, the cadre under the minister of industry bolted and went into hiding.  But they were not close to a border; they were not within the protective reach of the Vietnamese army. They could only band together and operate as a rogue vigilante group in Phnom Penh itself, a group of angry, armed factory workers bent on taking revenge against Pol Pot, Duch, and the revolution.  They apparently ambushed and killed other cadre. When Ieng Sary said he feared a coup d'etat inside Cambodia at the time, he was undoubtedly referring in part to these men."  -- Elizabeth Becker, When the War Was Over

I am eager to know more about this group of factory workers who fought back. I checked in the Notes at the back of the book but I did not see a reference for this paragraph. Can anyone point me to any books or sources who might have additional details on this rebel cadre?  Has anyone documented their whole story? 

It is my feeling that Cambodia needs to find its own Oskar Schindlers -- the people who fought back and the people who resisted Pol Pot.  Elizabeth Becker's book Bophana does a brilliant job of that.  But I know there are many many more stories of resistance that can be brought to light -- and this story of the factory workers who fought back seems like a promising possibility. 

Any help you can provide to track down more information about these factory workers would be very much appreciated.