The Muddy Waters Of Public Discourse
According to this BBC article Sharon Stone has been dropped by Christian Dior after suggesting that the earthquake in China was the result of bad karma. From where I'm sitting, all the parties here look a bit stupid. Another BBC article does a good job of rebutting Stone's comments - the common perception that karma is a black and white "what goes around, comes around" is a bit of an oversimplification.
I'm more concerned about the attitude that seems to be underlying - that the victims of the earthquake are in some sense responsible for their own tragedy. I have the sneaking suspicion that none of the people killed in the Earthquake are from government offices or were involved in forming China's policy towards Tibet and human rights in general. So if Stone wants to suggest that karma is involved, she's also suggesting that karma is more or less racist - killing off an indiscriminate number of Chinese people for something that they didn't do because it was planned and carried out by other Chinese people. It's the same sort of logic as suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was karma for Guantanamo Bay. Sadly the natural world does not have a sense of justice, but I like to think that if it did, it would pick the right targets.
That aside, I'm also pretty unimpressed with Christian Dior's attitude, quoting from the first article above:
Wait. So it's not that you are annoyed she's made a ridiculous misattribution of cause and effect and blamed victims for the tragedy they're in? It's just that you don't want to upset the Chinese people? Corporate pragmatism is truly horrific. All that is important to Christian Dior is that they can continue to tap the Chinese market with its huge population and rapidly expanding middle class. It doesn't matter what the Chinese government does, or what the United States government does for that matter, as long as the consumers keep consuming and Christian Dior (substitute any major company name here) can continue shoving products into consumers' greedy hands. Human rights abuse, from a corporate point of view, is nearly invisible.
So what would I reasonably expect a corporation to do in this situation?
Boycotting the Chinese market is unlikely to have any effect on China's Tibet policy - they are large and powerful enough that they can shrug off criticism and accept bad PR simply on the basis that no one can really do anything to them. Is it reasonable to expect companies to do things that will cost them money and sales and won't have any discernable effect? I'm not sure.
It disturbs me that corporations tend to adopt ethical positions only under circumstances where the alternative would make them look bad. On that subject it is worth looking over this document on greenwashing. I have mixed feelings about it because once again, the document isn't suggesting that greenwashing is bad because companies will represent themselves as environmentally friendly even if they're not but because companies who represent themselves as environmentally friendly when they're not may experience a negative reaction from the public. In other words it's another situation and mode of thinking in which the ethical action is not the important part - the important part is that they are seen to be ethical and that it is believed to be genuine. I don't care if a company releases advertisements of chimney stacks with flowers pouring out of them instead of smoke - to me the important part is what that company is actually doing on the issue and the more they spin it and the more polished their image is, the harder it is to know if they are trustworthy or not.
By way of example, I bought a new phone for my house yesterday because the existing one doesn't really work. I picked a phone that boasted of being "40% more energy efficient" and I was also pleased to find that the packaging was cardboard, tissue paper and a small amount of biodegradable plastic. The thing is, I have no idea how energy efficient normal phones are, and my trust that this company cares about the environment is impacted by the fact that they sell other phones that aren't 40% more efficient than normal phones. If they expect me to believe their position, it needs to be a real position - as it is, it looks more like they're just trying to market to a demographic they've just realised exists.
On the other hand, while the ends don't justify the means, the fact that a company is pursuing a different outcome (higher sales) than me (reducing my impact on the environment) doesn't preclude us from having a satisfactory arrangement. This is where it comes back to China.
Last year I visited a couple I know while their power was down, and when the electricity guys showed up, we went outside and talked to them. They were friendly people, but what surprised me was one of the points that came up during the conversation. I don't remember his exact words but one of the electricity guys said something like this:
It's something I had never thought about, and I am ashamed to say it surprised me to hear a blue-collar worker say something so insightful. It made me realise that despite my politics I still had streaks of elitism and I needed to be truer to my belief that everyone can have a valid viewpoint if they understand the issue. Because he's right. There is no chance that Japan and the USA would go to war any time in the foreseeable future because their economies are tied together. It's getting more and more like that with China. If there is a way to prevent human rights abuse, it is not through boycott or confrontation, which would stiffen their resolve, or conflict, which would cause more suffering. It isn't right to ignore the situation in China, but we gain nothing by suggesting natural disasters are comeuppance. We need to criticise without that bitter, holier-than-thou attitude. It makes me wish that Sharon Stone had stopped talking after her first sentence:
It's hard to disagree with that.
I'm more concerned about the attitude that seems to be underlying - that the victims of the earthquake are in some sense responsible for their own tragedy. I have the sneaking suspicion that none of the people killed in the Earthquake are from government offices or were involved in forming China's policy towards Tibet and human rights in general. So if Stone wants to suggest that karma is involved, she's also suggesting that karma is more or less racist - killing off an indiscriminate number of Chinese people for something that they didn't do because it was planned and carried out by other Chinese people. It's the same sort of logic as suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was karma for Guantanamo Bay. Sadly the natural world does not have a sense of justice, but I like to think that if it did, it would pick the right targets.
That aside, I'm also pretty unimpressed with Christian Dior's attitude, quoting from the first article above:
"We don't agree with her hasty, unreflecting remarks and we deeply regret them," it said in a Chinese-language statement.
"We absolutely do not support any remark that hurts the Chinese people's feelings."
Wait. So it's not that you are annoyed she's made a ridiculous misattribution of cause and effect and blamed victims for the tragedy they're in? It's just that you don't want to upset the Chinese people? Corporate pragmatism is truly horrific. All that is important to Christian Dior is that they can continue to tap the Chinese market with its huge population and rapidly expanding middle class. It doesn't matter what the Chinese government does, or what the United States government does for that matter, as long as the consumers keep consuming and Christian Dior (substitute any major company name here) can continue shoving products into consumers' greedy hands. Human rights abuse, from a corporate point of view, is nearly invisible.
So what would I reasonably expect a corporation to do in this situation?
Boycotting the Chinese market is unlikely to have any effect on China's Tibet policy - they are large and powerful enough that they can shrug off criticism and accept bad PR simply on the basis that no one can really do anything to them. Is it reasonable to expect companies to do things that will cost them money and sales and won't have any discernable effect? I'm not sure.
It disturbs me that corporations tend to adopt ethical positions only under circumstances where the alternative would make them look bad. On that subject it is worth looking over this document on greenwashing. I have mixed feelings about it because once again, the document isn't suggesting that greenwashing is bad because companies will represent themselves as environmentally friendly even if they're not but because companies who represent themselves as environmentally friendly when they're not may experience a negative reaction from the public. In other words it's another situation and mode of thinking in which the ethical action is not the important part - the important part is that they are seen to be ethical and that it is believed to be genuine. I don't care if a company releases advertisements of chimney stacks with flowers pouring out of them instead of smoke - to me the important part is what that company is actually doing on the issue and the more they spin it and the more polished their image is, the harder it is to know if they are trustworthy or not.
By way of example, I bought a new phone for my house yesterday because the existing one doesn't really work. I picked a phone that boasted of being "40% more energy efficient" and I was also pleased to find that the packaging was cardboard, tissue paper and a small amount of biodegradable plastic. The thing is, I have no idea how energy efficient normal phones are, and my trust that this company cares about the environment is impacted by the fact that they sell other phones that aren't 40% more efficient than normal phones. If they expect me to believe their position, it needs to be a real position - as it is, it looks more like they're just trying to market to a demographic they've just realised exists.
On the other hand, while the ends don't justify the means, the fact that a company is pursuing a different outcome (higher sales) than me (reducing my impact on the environment) doesn't preclude us from having a satisfactory arrangement. This is where it comes back to China.
Last year I visited a couple I know while their power was down, and when the electricity guys showed up, we went outside and talked to them. They were friendly people, but what surprised me was one of the points that came up during the conversation. I don't remember his exact words but one of the electricity guys said something like this:
Well, our whole company is owned by a Chinese company. But I don't see it as a bad thing. They own bits of Australia and we own bits of China. Everyone has shares in everyone else. It means we're less likely to have a war because we're invested in eachother.
It's something I had never thought about, and I am ashamed to say it surprised me to hear a blue-collar worker say something so insightful. It made me realise that despite my politics I still had streaks of elitism and I needed to be truer to my belief that everyone can have a valid viewpoint if they understand the issue. Because he's right. There is no chance that Japan and the USA would go to war any time in the foreseeable future because their economies are tied together. It's getting more and more like that with China. If there is a way to prevent human rights abuse, it is not through boycott or confrontation, which would stiffen their resolve, or conflict, which would cause more suffering. It isn't right to ignore the situation in China, but we gain nothing by suggesting natural disasters are comeuppance. We need to criticise without that bitter, holier-than-thou attitude. It makes me wish that Sharon Stone had stopped talking after her first sentence:
"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else."
It's hard to disagree with that.
posted by Ben | 9:04 am
|
0 comments
