Yo Bob!
Like your previous postings, your Oct 4 e-mail...
>John
>Point = Agricultural and Industrial Age TRADITIONAL MODELS likely to have
>limited value in solving our emerging Inrformation/Learning age problems
>(alienation a part of the industrial/bureaucratic culture) reciprocity as
>cooperation rather than /collaboration==win
>lose=compete-cooperate=collaborate as intergroup conflict management options
...suggests all will be right in the world if only everybody becomes
trained in Intergroup Conflict Management or the like.
Under the rubric of "Scientific Management", 'leading' U$ university
'schools of management' have been peddling this type of 'Magic Pill' since
around about the 1950s, following the SECOND World War - in a failed
endeavour to cure/head off worker alienation and the resultant industrial
conflict, sabotage, poor productivity etc.!
Indeed, "executives" from 'leading' U$ corporations and the employer unions
(chambers of commerce and powerful industry associations etc ) have poured
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of $$$$s into promoting and disseminating such
"reasonable", "sensible" and "practial" schemes: why would`nt EVERY
(responsible) 'worker'/union of 'workers' jump at the chance to do whatever
it takes to obtain a "win-win" outcome? After all, its in their
self-interest to do so, right?
Why, then, are an elite minority of Corporate "executive" employees allowed
to pay themselves (with the complicity of their fellow Board members)
income "packages" of - in some instances - TENS AND EVEN HUNDREDS of
MILLIONS of $$$$$$$s PER YEAR?
How is it that many of these "executive" employees are able to retain their
"Performance-Based" Bonuses - EVEN WHEN THEIR EMPLOYING COMPANY, FIRM, or
CORPORATION HAS SUSTAINED MASSIVE LOSSES AND/OR IS IN DANGER OF OR HAS
ACTUALLY GONE BELLY-UP, WHILST THOSE RESPONSIBLE TAKE HUGE SUMS OF MONEY
WITH THEM AS THEY BAIL OUT UNDER THEIR " GOLDEN PARACHUTES"?
How is it possible, Bob, for such things to occur, whilst at the same time
the rest of the world has witnessed the development of an 'under-class' of
broken and totally marginalised/alienated U$ citizens ("bums" and
"layabouts" etc), and the re-emergence of a marginally better-off (but
nevertheless highly vulnerable) sub-class of millions of Americans referred
to as "The (New) Working Poor"....' workers' on minimal rates of pay as low
as $5 or 6 an hour, which forces many of them to try to hold down 2 or 3
such lowly-paid 'jobs' in order for they and their families to subsist...if
they are still together?
Of course this includes many of the 2 MILLION American non-citizens
(prisoners in U$ penitentiaries are disbarred from voting in political
elections) now incarcerated within the increasingly "privately managed" (
i.e. profit driven) U$ "correctional services" system, who are "employed"
at even lower hourly rates of pay, on a variety of tasks for both
government AND private sector enterprises!
At the same time, millions of Americans (including even some in the
so-called "Middle Class" live in fear of falling ill or being unfortunate
enough to be injured at work, at play or on the highways), as over 40
million of your fellow citizens do not have any Health Insurance cover,
either because they are not covered by their employer and/or inability to
themselves pay the monthly/annual premiums to private insurance corporations.
Thus, in the light of events on September 11 and even before that - (an
economic system riddled with contradictions and deepening crises) - both
the Future (of) Work and the possibility of any form of substantial
"win-win" outcome for millions of American ' workers' appear increasingly
problematic and remote. Whilst the notion of Intergroup Conflict
Management or the like may well have even resulted in a "win-win" outcome
for some lucky employees, millions more will be forced to continue to work
the longest hours in any of the so-called "advanced", OECD countries, and
receive the shortest period of paid annual leave.
The ideal of "win-win" outcomes for ' workers' under a Capitalist mode of
production is both a contradiction and a flawed ideology, pushed by the
well-rewarded members of the Managerial class in an attempt to reduce the
high levels of resentment, anger, alienation, rebellion and outright
resistence to injustice and oppression by their "sub-ordinates".
Given the inequitous socio-economic structures of this particular,
historical system under which most of us are today forced to labour,
schemes for conflict-reduction and "win-win" ideology can but have limited
efficacy and utility.
meantime, here`s another thought-provoking article, this time from Vinay
Menon of the Toronto Star.
the post also contains good references and links, and a note of caution to
the U$ 'leaders'
http://commondreams.org/views01/1004-11.htm
Published on Wednesday, October 3,
2001 in the Toronto Star
The Art of Persuasion
Propaganda Machines Go Into Overdrive During Times of Strife
by Vinay Menon
Propaganda - most simply information used to persuade a group - is as old
as civilization. The Aztecs used it to rationalize human sacrifice.
Alexander the Great understood its symbolic power and had his image etched
on coins.
But propaganda has always been most crucial during periods of conflict and
war.
So today, with advertising and other forms of modern persuasion ubiquitous,
how do leaders slice through the muddled cacophony and target citizens with
messages?
"The whole notion of propaganda now is up for grabs," says Robert Thompson,
a professor at Syracuse University. "In this age of 24-hour news and spin,
where there is constant coverage, propaganda has come out of the closet and
it really lives among us every day."
If Thompson is right, what does this mean to the "War Against Terrorism,"
which seems to be moving toward a more active phase in Afghanistan this
week?
Unlike past military efforts, the White House has warned the new war will
unfold with "unprecedented secrecy." Though it's now a clich�, it is
important to remember truth is often the first casualty of war.
Ironically, says Thomas DeLuca, a political science professor at Fordham
University in New York, the sheer magnitude of the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks created a temporary "propaganda-free zone" because people were
simply horrified by the visceral images.
For days there were no television commercials. Almost all news coverage was
devoted to the story. The entire world seemed to collapse into the deepening
tragedy.
"This is an unprecedented event in U.S. history," DeLuca says. "There has
never been an attack like this. Concentration on this event is highly
focused. People want the president to have a plan, to reassure them, to be
straightforward.
"So George Bush will have an enormous benefit as his words cut through the
propaganda that is usually around us."
Anthony Pratkanis, professor of psychology at the University of California
in Santa Cruz, and author of Age Of Propaganda: The Everyday Use And Abuse
Of Persuasion, agrees. But he says in the weeks ahead, as collective shock
begins to ebb, Bush will be faced with a number of daunting challenges.
"If Bush wants to maintain and sustain the effort, the emotional propaganda
will be okay for a short war, but in the long term he needs to deliver
persuasion. He needs to form consensus and argue with substance, not
slogan."
That seemed to be the case recently, as Bush addressed U.S. Congress. As
cameras rolled and politicians and lawmakers frequently wobbled to their
feet, and to thundering applause, Bush delivered a rousing, evocative
speech.
But the raw emotion and patriotism that has since bloomed atop the rubble in
New York and Washington is not necessarily beneficial to anybody in the long
run, says Nancy Snow, assistant director with the Center for Communications
and Community at UCLA. "A `war mentality� needs to be decontextualized. It
needs to be very clear, black and white, good guys versus bad guys," says
Snow, author of Propaganda Inc.: Selling America's Culture To The World.
"So you end up with a single enemy, with slogans like `Wanted: Dead or
Alive,� ones that simplify the issues. Bush is using an `everyman� approach
to what is actually a very complex problem, burdensome in a historical and
economic context."
And this simplification, whether deliberate or not, can cloud fundamental
issues. In times of conflict, things are not always as they appear.
Before the Persian Gulf War, for example, the world gasped with reports that
Iraqi troops were yanking sick babies from hospital incubators and leaving
them to die on the floor during the invasion of Kuwait. The "dead babies"
account was repeated hundreds of times, in the media and in speeches by U.S.
leaders, who were now clearly on a war footing. Other reports - that Iraq
had amassed thousands of troops along the Saudi Arabia border - were also
used to convince the public that military action was necessary.
Both of those reports proved incorrect, but not until the war was over.
Larry Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota,
says the Persian Gulf War took traditional propaganda to a new level as U.S.
authorities controlled the flow of information in the media and expanded the
lexicon of military euphemisms. Cruise missiles. Smart bombs. Collateral
damage. Safe bunkers. Hard targets. Hit ratios. Surgical strikes. To western
television viewers, the war must have appeared essentially bloodless.
John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine and author of Second
Front: Censorship And Propaganda In The Gulf War, says he believes the war
on terrorism will unfold with even more secrecy and censorship. "Already we
have a kind of `ahistoricality� setting in," he explains.
"Nobody here is talking about some very important issues. You�re simply not
allowed to discuss the history of American foreign policy."
Such discussions are seen as unseemly, morally ambiguous, and steeped in
preposterous and offensive anti-Americanism. The issue, to many, is simple
good versus evil.
Says Jacobs: "The whole notion of propaganda raises a larger question: How
do you control and manage press reports and the information that is reaching
the general public?"
During the uprising in Germany, as the Nazis gained power, Josef Goebbels
was able to impart nationalist rhetoric and manufacture consent through
selective advertising, state-produced films, and elaborate, orchestrated
public events.
(Adolf Hitler also asked Leni Reifenstahl to film the Nazi Party's annual
rally in Nuremburg. Her film, Triumph Of The Will, is now considered a
seminal exercise in fascist propaganda.)
Decades later, Slobodan Milosevic created "demo networks" - ragtag groups of
unemployed youth that would optically boost the size at rallies held for
Serbian nationalism.
More recently, Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile U.S. Authorities are calling
the prime suspect in the recent attacks, has filmed several training videos.
As tools of propaganda, the grainy, disjointed footage is used to mollify
moderates and recruit new soldiers for the Holy War. (During its bloody war
with Russia, Afghan rebels were given camcorders to record their triumphs.)
In totalitarian states, persuasion is straightforward. Citizens are simply
told what to believe and how to behave. But in democratic nations,
governance has nuance, inextricably tethered to divergent principles of
individual freedom and mass control.
As scholar Noam Chomsky says: "Propaganda is to democracy what violence is
to totalitarianism."
In this context, says Pratkanis, where propaganda is concerned, governments
realize the importance of the media. "The mass media is now the primary
place where we have political discussions. So one of the keys to effective
political leadership is being able to control the news media's agenda. That
agenda is not necessarily how you are talking about something, but what you
are talking about."
In the war against terrorism, he says, there have been a number of examples
where U.S. Authorities announced, "they were planning to release" certain
information in the future. This allows the media to run a story about the
"future release" of information, rather than the information itself.
"This war will be a challenge for democracy itself," Pratkanis predicts.
"Because democracy thrives when everything is in the light of day. Now
democracy in the United States will require a high degree of trust."
And trust is a commodity in rapid decline. The Internet, decades of
independent research, and the rapid evolution of alternative media has
created a population that is much more sophisticated in its ability to
recognize and decipher propaganda - irrespective of the source.
"Audiences throughout the world are constantly becoming more exposed to the
latest in international mass media entertainment, they are better trained,
more aware, often more cynical," notes Oliver Thomson, author of Easily Led:
A History of Propaganda.
Randall Bytwerk, a professor of communication at Calvin College in Michigan,
author and a foremost expert in propaganda, says: "Propaganda, and the
control of public opinion, becomes harder when you lack control over the
images."
This proved to be the case in Vietnam, where public support suddenly dipped
as the horrifying images of war were broadcast back home. "Vietnam was a
turning point because there were reporters all over the place," Bytwerk
says.
In the stormy, post-Vietnam years, the U.S. has taken a cautious approach to
war. (In fact, the number of firefighters and police offices who died during
rescue efforts at the World Trade Center is more than the total military
personnel who have fallen in combat since the 1983 invasion of Grenada.)
Given the global scope of the new war, and the potential repercussions,
Garth Jowett, a communication professor at University of Houston, says Bush
has to be very careful in the propaganda he uses.
"I fully expected a propaganda onslaught that was going to be totally
irrational. But as I understand it, there was an internal conflict within
the Bush administration in terms of what kind of message to give the
American public."
Jowett says many people have compared the attacks with Pearl Harbor. But the
analogy is problematic. In that case, there was a clear nation-state enemy.
And it's important to remember, he adds, that most Americans did not see
footage of the Japanese attack for almost a year.
"In terms of propaganda, those visual images (of planes striking the World
Trade Center) could not be matched by any other imaginable images," says
John Lampe, chair of the Department of History at the University of
Maryland. "In fact, if there is any propaganda campaign at play at all, it
is to prevent the violent, stereotypical response we have seen domestically
in the past."
Lampe is referring to the threats and attacks that have been leveled at
Arab-Americans and Muslims throughout North America. The violence, including
suspected murder, has raised the specter of the Japanese internment camps
during World War II.
As Jowett notes: "Bush has to maintain the public's confidence that the
government will actually do something. But he also doesn't want to get the
public so riled up so that they are running out murdering their own
citizens."
And as Bush said during his speech to Congress: "I also want to speak
tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith.
It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in
countries that America counts as friends."
First Lady Laura Bush went on 60 Minutes recently to discuss the importance
of solidarity and urge Americans to not attack their fellow citizens. And
during the recent celebrity telethon, America: A Tribute To Heroes, a number
of stars, including Will Smith and Muhammad Ali, urged tolerance.
Similarly, this week, U.S. Authorities have scrambled with messages about
the safety of air travel - even though Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport has remained closed (it will open partially tomorrow). And a number
of experts have also started appearing on television telling Americans their
country is prepared for any biological attack, even though other
non-government sources warn the opposite is true.
"We are an action oriented culture," Snow says. "We are not an introspective
culture.
``And that�s where the sloganeering and jingoism comes into play.
``We are almost given a script and walking papers in terms of how we are
supposed to respond."
Copyright 1996-2001. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
###
�Copyrighted 1997-2001
www.commondreams.org
==================== + ===================
Please support:
http://Antiwar.com and
http://www.Space4Peace.org.
==================== + ===================
