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

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

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t
2 comments
Read more