Myths of Corporate Personhood

Here's the short version, for the longer (explained) version, click here.

Text of Belden Fields teach in "The Myth of Corporate Personhood"

THE DISEMPOWERING FOG CREATED BY 14 IDEOLOGICAL MYTHS

Prepared for Occupy the Quad at the University of Illinois, Urbana 1/19/12

by Belden Fields

1. The myth that the corporation is a person with the rights of individuals.

2. The myth that Supreme Court represents a higher interpretation of law that transcends partisan politics.

3. The myth that money is speech; therefore, money spent freely in elections is protected by the First Amendment right to speech.

4. The myth that the interests of large corporations is in the interest of workers because they create jobs and raise standards of living.

5. The myth that “right to work” laws really protect workers’ rights.

6. The myth that government is the only source of bureaucracy that disempowers people.

7. The myth that economics is above moral concerns and the market will always, by definition, result in the greatest good for society.

8. The myth that the United States is a democracy.

9. The myth that the only legitimate human economic human right is the right to private property.

10. The collateral myth that that social security, health care benefits, and pensions are unearned and unaffordable “entitlements."

11. The myth that privatization is always more “efficient” than public goods and services.

12. The myth that the “official” unemployment rate in the United States is accurate and comparable to the unemployment rates in other countries.

13. The myth that the U.S. offers the highest rates of upward mobility in the world.

14. The myth that there is no alternative to the capitalist system that manifests the above characteristics and treats the worker as a commodity.

Lecture: Race and Whiteness within Vegan Philosophy

I attended two of Breeze Harper's talks as part of the Campus EcoFeminism Summit, an event I am glad to know will be continuing annually. I learned a lot from attending her keynote speech and her less formal vegan meet n' greet event earlier in the day. What it means to be a good environmentalist today is to buy more things: a hybrid car, organic veggies, expensive gadgets. Along these lines, I'll admit: never before had I explicitly considered where race and class belong in the discussion of veganism.

Breeze Harper was the summit's keynote speaker with speech called: “Race and Whiteness within Vegan Philosophy: Critical Race Feminist Reflections from the Sistah Vegan Project.” Breeze's main point was that mainstream veganism has been presented by and for a narrow segment of race and class (white middle-class); many authors don't acknowledge that they are white and middle to upper class. She suggested that many (white) people in the United States have a racial literacy from the '50s where racism = segregation and overt violence like lynching. The view of our society as “post-racial” (“we're not racist, we have a black president”) covertly encourages race- and class-neutral attitudes, and does more harm than good.

Breeze talked a lot about privilege: it's like being born on second base when you think you started at bat. She argued that there isn't a good understanding of how whiteness and racism work in veganism, and many popular books are laden with unacknowledged privileges: don't be a cheapskate, buy all organic foods! (Well, what if there isn't a Whole Foods in your backyard, or you don't have a car to drive to one, or the money to afford their high prices?) Without knowing where we're at in terms of race, class and gender and the historical contexts of which we're a part, we can't see how these things shape our relationship to nature.

The path to addressing these issues will hold anti-racism as a central tenant and include reflection about our own privileges. To learn more about her work, visit the Sistah Vegan Blog. She also mentioned further reading: Lee & Lutz: Situating "race" and racisms in time, space, and theory and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's Racism Without Racists.

Lecture: Empathy Paradox – Increasing disconnection in the age of increasing connection

by Sara Konrath – Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Univ of Michigan

Konrath began her talk with a quote about new media, as “vulgar,” “poison,” and a “national evil.” However, the quote was actually from 1749

with regard to the new media form of the novel. This perspective grounded the audience in the fact that, well, usually, we’re hesitant about new media and we may even go as far as to disdain it. Or, the older generations have long rejected or disapproved of younger generations’ use of particular forms of media (from books, to flapper culture, to facebook). These are not new things.

Her question is: is there an increase in disconnectness with today's new media(s)? As a psychologist, she examined several personality trait variables since 1979 in college student populations: narcissism, empathy, and attachment styles. (Nerdy psych note: Attachment styles are usually, or were originally, discussed in terms of child-caretaker relations, but have been since adapted to adult attachment.)

So, in a nutshell, her findings did suggest the worst cases, trends showing an increase in narcissism, decrease in empathy, and an increase in a dismissive(avoidant?) relationship styles since 1979. However: these are small numbers, not huge changes, and she noted that it doesn’t mean [we’re] unable to have healthy relationships, just less able, on average.

Next there was some discussion on potential causes, because psychologists always remind us: correlation is not causation. An important point is that these trends didn’t start with the internet, but perhaps could be exacerbated by its use/omnipresence. Her suggestions for future research are as follows:

-examine more closely the prosocial effects of new media (not just the bad stuff)

-methods for determining causal relations

-motives for media use

-assessment of media use and its effects (not just general use, but what are people doing?)

An interesting point was brought up in the ensuing Q&A session, in that facebook really blurs the circles of intimacy that we’re used to. Rather than keeping your family, best friends, acquaintances separate, on facebook (and on this blog) we just broadcast indiscriminately to everyone. Someone also asked if ther had been any assessment of behavioral measures (not just traits) and she suggested Robert Putnam (specifically, his book: Bowling Alone).

I'd be interested to discuss the implications of these findings. For example, do these trends in the traits of college students over time have impacts on, say, their attitudes toward the "environment?"

Lecture: Social Science Aspects of Sustainability and Climate Change

As a grad student in Communication I also attend a lot of lectures on various topics including sustainability, climate change, gender, class and race awareness, and whatever else peaks my interest. I’m thinking that it would be a good idea to do a short write up after each one to help me digest the various topics and keep writing. So here begins a series of responses to lectures I attend.

Today’s lecture was given by Scott Butner who works at the Pacific NW National Lab, specifically in the Technosocial Predictive Analytics Initiative (TPAI). It was presented as part of the ISTC’s Seminar Series on Sustainability.

The motivating idea of the talk was that we (engineers?) should consider both group and individual behavior in modeling of climate change and energy use. Butner touched on the definition of sustainability noting that the Bruntland Commission’s usage has no inclusion of metrics, and that generally, engineers tend to think of the problem of sustainability as fundamentally rooted in material and energy constraints. I personally don’t this has people (society, individual behavior) integrated enough into the definition, nor do I think sustainability can be boiled down into one fundamental problem. It seems much more complex than that.

The group at TPAI through a grant from the EPA has used systems dynamic modeling (with STELLA) to combine technological systems (agriculture, climate change, smart grid) with social and individual behavior models. Apparently they’ve also use computer gaming to inform opinions. However, near the end of the talk he mentioned that these models are “pretty disposable” and are mainly used to spur critical thinking, not produce results.

Here are some of my thoughts:

• I’m not very familiar with modeling in the social sciences. I’d like to learn more about/if there are endemic (i.e. rooted in social science) models of, say, behavioral change. Usually when I think of social scientists using the word “model” it’s mostly theory, not a sort of “black box” type of thinking including inputs and outputs which I assume most engineers/technically-minded people think of. I might be wrong here, but I think the social vs. “hard” sciences have different uses of the word ‘model.’
• The speaker used a quote from the USDOE regarding the smart grid, noting it “will require cultural change.” How can the publishers so over-generalize and simplify cultural change, suggesting it might come from top-down government recommendations? Is this in line with folk knowledge (or scientific knowledge) about how cultural change actually occurs?
• Another point that was mentioned a few times is that even with increases in energy efficiency, energy use is still on the rise. Or, there are “normative expectations” for energy use. He cited this article to back up the claim.
• The team at TPAI used the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) data for mapping variables like affluence and behavior – one of the most interesting slides in the presentation was the correlation tables between behavior and energy usage across several variables. Like: affluence is correlated with the number of windows in a house. (More affluent = more windows)
• Also, and this may be slightly cynical, but I was struck by the sort of generalized nature of "social science" and discussions of "behavior." This is pretty much in line with many of the informal discussions I've had with engineering friends or groups. It made me wonder: who does critical social science? Do engineers who eventually recognize the importance of social science tend to have a less critical and more generalized understanding? Hopefully that's not horribly offensive, but there are open comments...