Skip to main content

How Productive is Politics?

By RK

Reading about the material dialectic discussed by Lee Artz, I got flashes of how this dialectic operates in the contemporary political environment. In the wake of the earthquake in Haiti, it has become evident how a template for disaster management has been developed - Anderson Cooper flashes across the CNN screen in the wee hours helping us make sense of it all; this is followed by Obama (or whoever the current leader of the free world is) pledging a hundred million dollars in aid, topped off with singer-songwriters churning out disaster-specific tunes for the week. According to Artz, "..a vital part of social relations is communication - the symbolic and practical means for organizing, understanding, and changing our social relations: interacting with each other, we communicate, we produce communication, we use communication, and we as communicators change in the process." (p. 14)

Not to detract from basic human decency, but one does think of what is under the hood in such situations. Though the basic goal is helping fellow men, the ultimate rhetorical goal may be different for different countries in the political milieu. In this scenario as international aid becomes the communicative instrument of the materialistic dialectic in international relations, does this aid translate to a rhetorical message of the savior and the saved? Does it become one of establishing oneself on a political pedestal as a means of reasserting supremacy? Or is it, in fact an insurance policy - an assurance of reciprocity?

On the other side of the globe, media technology, which Artz terms a "social product" (p. 15) is being utilized for apparently political purposes through Google's announcement of withdrawal from the Chinese marketplace. Whether this withdrawal is a business savvy one (Google currently holds less than half the online market in China, the rest being owned by Baidu), or a political stand, it is evident that the means of production and distribution become key players in our societies today. Here, if the Google decision does not deter the Chinese government, the political ideology will, at least temporarily have an upper hand over the means of production. (Who would've thought those could be mutually exclusive? That's a debate for another day.)

Thus, the concept of communication as a social process has gained more momentum in the wake of the technological revolution, especially with the existence of communist and capitalist markets and the interaction between the two. However, in either instance, there is no denying that the means of production and the consequent benefits are key issues to be considered. What remains variable is whether or not political ideologies line up with these production'istas. More importantly, how far can the political ideologists afford to ignore the Google's of the world? Afford, being the operative word here.

Comments

Zhuo said…
I should think Google's withdrawal from China exactly shows how superstructure such as ideology is build on the foundation of economic bases. On the one hand, Google seems to attribute its withdrawal to the lack of "freedom of speech" and breaches of privacy in China; on the other hand, users information are sold to advertisers on daily basis by Google itself. One the on hand, it is picturing itself as human rights watchers, on the other hand, hundreds/thousands of Google China employees are going to be laid off overnight by the decision. The basis of the discrepancy here is exactly business profitability, (As a footnote,Just 2 months ago state survey in China showed that Google's market share had dropped to less than 1/3 of a local competitor), and ideology serves no more than a masquerade to cover the fact that Google is doing what all international businesses do all the time: exploiting a market when(and only when) it is profitable, and exiting it when (and only when) it is not.
January 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM
Shaunak Sastry said…
Rati,

I disagree. I don't think political ideology is an organic entity separate from organizations like Google. I think Google (like everything else) works on an ideological platform. Marx, and later Althusser would tell us that this ideology is camouflaged by the economic, the spiritual, the religious or the 'civil'. I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'political ideologies' need to line up with production'istas. I don't think they're separable. I think Google has made an ideological move already.
Would love to hear thoughts.
January 16, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Academic integrity and knowing what you stand for

By
Reading the story of the UVa President Teresa Sullivan, I am filled with amazement at her integrity and character. Professor Sullivan first and foremost is an A-grade academic, a solid researcher, a great teacher, and an engaged citizen. Of course above and beyond these top-notch credentials, she is a strong leader, one with vision and compassion for her faculty and students. When I read more and more about her leadership style, I am reminded of something my father used to tell me when I was young "You need to have integrity to do anything well in life. You need to figure out where you stand and make sure to stand up for what you believe in, even when that is inconvenient." Now, I don't think I have always been able to follow this dictum consistently, but it is a broad principle that guides me and the way in which I understand leadership. Part of the story of Professor Sullivan's integrity is her excellence as an academic. Academic excellence to me is deepl
Post a Comment
Read more

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
6 comments
Read more

Activism, Communication and Social Change

By
Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues. Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed var
1 comment
Read more