20 July 07 - 16:30Precarious Dominance Theory
I'd like to propose a theory that explains the reasoning behind the continued support and fierce insistence on the continued dominance of certain groups.
Precarious Dominance Theory can be used to explain why certain groups are supported (by others) and fiercely insist that they must retain dominance over another group in order to survive. This group (a minority) believes that their dominance (usually over a majority group) must be maintained or that the majority group will simply wipe them out if given the chance. The way that they retain this dominance is varied; it can be through a political system; military, logistical, economic technological might; or through the support (and often threat of force or sanctions) from an outside group or groups. Continued dominance over other groups tends to further exacerbate the dominated group's grievances against the minority, which reinforces the perceived need for maintaining that dominance. The "barbarians at the gates" must always be kept out, and support for the minority group's power has to be constantly reinforced, lest the majority will simply roll over the minority.
As to whether the theory is actually true in a given situation depends on the particulars of that situation. In some cases, the threat is real and dominance must in fact be maintained until some other option becomes available to equalize the sides, or nullify the issue altogether. In others, the belief may be mistaken, and there would be little chance that the aggrieved group would in fact retaliate if dominance was removed.
In any case, there are several real world examples (mostly in current and former apartheid states) to illustrate the concept.
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
07 July 07 - 17:53Cluetrain revisited
- Don't worry, you can still make money. That is, as long as it's not the only thing on your mind.
- Have you noticed that, in itself, money is kind of one-dimensional and boring? What else can we talk about?
I'm a huge fan of the
Cluetrain Manifesto. I think it's brilliant and forward-looking. It also accurately captures the changing markets and the people that participate in them and drive them. However, this one part has been bothering me.
What the CTM ignores the fact that a great many people who are part of companies don't actually want to be there. Not because of the pay, working conditions, benefits or even people they work with. No, what I'm talking about has to do with "rat race escape culture". It's a culture which views work not as a way to create value, keeping the economy going (for all the reasons that government wants to - like containing social unrest), or improving the standard of living and happiness of people (which many governments, NGOs, and other organizations want), but as a vehicle to escape. It's a springboard. A way out. If they had a million dollars tomorrow, they wouldn't continue to try to create value: they'd simply exit being part of driving or working within markets, period. Part of escape culture is the idea of the "eternal tourist": something like move to a tropical island, lay on the beach all day drinking exotic beverages, and perhaps taking in a watered down, tourist-ified version of the local culture (replace this fantasy with whatever your national equivalent is). This is difficult to ignore.
So why does this exist? Three reasons that I see. One, the way that "work" is pushed - at least in the US - as something you have to do or you starve, live on the street, get sick, and die. It's not just social stigma (being viewed as an outcast, lazy, useless), but is driven directly by Market Fundamentalist policies (weak or no social safety nets, employer-based health care that you lose if you don't work). Two, as a result of said policies, we have weak to non existent universal education or work training systems (free higher education like in Europe would go a long way). Three, as a result of pushing work as a do or die affair, many people would rather not participate at all, and do their level best to escape as quickly as possible, and in the most extreme cases, leads many people to do highly unethical to highly illegal things (the Enrons and the mini-Enrons). This feeds right into escape culture "live the easy life on the beaches of Cancun!", which is far more seductive than the pro-work culture line "you have to work or you'll be on the street with no health care, and you'll die of Gangrene!". Of course many people are going to choose the former.
So what's the step forward? Destroy the Market Fundamentalist movement and defeat its rhetoric. Offer a real alternative, backed by policies which support it: free, universal higher education; strong work training programs; excellent social safety nets; actual collective bargaining power; and programs to steer people into areas that they like while making a profit, rather than pushing them into areas where they can simply make money.
A nation of people who dream of making enough money to retire to the Bahamas as quickly as possible so they can leave an uncaring market behind is not really in our best interests.
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
