In Jeffrey Schmidt’s book “Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals,” Schmidt argues that the majority of humans become “disciplined minds” when they are forced to conform to the soul battering system of work and university. Indeed, it might even be said that the university programs they pursued were designed fundamentally to prepare them for the ‘real’ world, meaning the interests of those who are at the top of the corporate and government hierarchies. However, while these professionals have a relatively high level of formal education and given their university training, tend to believe they possess strong critical analysis skills, the institutions they serve severely limits their freedom to think independently. For our purposes salaried professionals, will be defined as those individuals who completed an undergraduate degree at university, often followed by a graduate degree, and who then go on to work for a corporation or government (as is more likely the case with members of our group) and become servants of the hierarchical structure of these institutions.
Given the intrinsic need of human beings to lead meaningful lives, salaried professionals tend to positively identify with the institutions they serve and to legitimize those institutions’ broader effect on the ‘society’ at large. For example, a professional working for a pharmaceutical firm may convince herself that the patent application she is working on is beneficial to the basic process of developing new drugs. Or a government policy analyst working for the Canadian International Development Agency might convince himself that the department does a lot of good around the world, when in fact its programs have at many times done a lot of damage. Instead of questioning the nature of the work they engage in, salaried professionals learn to think critically only within the boundaries set by their institutions. For instance, policy recommendations formulated by government bureaucrats will not diverge from options that are considered ‘realistic’ – meaning options that fall within the range of acceptable opinion. Thus, if a bureaucrat working at the Department of Foreign Affairs were to argue that Canada should sever its military partnership with the United States because the latter is regularly engages in gross violations of international humanitarian law, this would be viewed as absurd. Indeed, to make such recommendations, which run counter to the basic orientation of the institutions they serve, can negatively affect the salaried professional’s career, especially in corporations, where unions are usually absent.
Much of the reason for why all this happens is that the institutions that employ salaried professionals are hierarchical, which means that the agenda and parameters of work are set at the top. If workplaces were democratic, however, salaried professionals would have more leeway to question the basic orientation of the institutions they ‘work’ for and to reorient their institutions if necessary. But what does a democratic workplace mean? It means a place where decisions are made collectively, and where the executive branch, which today makes the important decisions, does not exist.
To get to this end goal, today’s salaried professionals must work within their respective institutions to reform them from the inside and bring slowly bring a greater degree of democracy to their workplaces. This agenda elicits a number of questions, which we’ll discuss together:
QUESTIONS
-
In your experience as a salaried professional, do you believe that you have the freedom to think independently at work?
-
Can you change the world by working from the within the system – meaning within a corporation or government department that does harm?
-
Given that corporations are ‘owned’ by shareholders, do employees have the right to pursue a democratic workplace?
-
Should we strive for democratic workplaces? Or will this be too chaotic?
-
Why or why not should salaried professionals have more democratic rights within the institutions they work for?
-
Should salaried professional ‘steal’ their employers’ time to fight for internal or external reform/causes?
FURTHER READING
Disciplined Minds Reviews:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JVP/is_2001_Winter/ai_90530892
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/february02ryan.htm
When: Monday, April 30, 2007, 5:30pm
Filed under: Captain America, Comic Books, Marvel, Politics, Popular Culture
****CIVIL WAR & CAPTAIN AMERICA SPOILER WARNING****
Captain America, a hero from the pages of comic books widely regarded as a symbol of America’s spirit, has perished – shot on the stairs of the court of law where he would have stood trial for opposing the government and defending civil liberties. This was the bitter end to a Marvel comic’s event entitled Civil War. (Actually, it was just after the bitter end of the Civil War if we want to get technical. I’m pretty sure no one besides me wants to be overly technical, BUT the actual end of Civil War was EVEN MORE symbolic, I’ll get to that in a sec.)
ACADEMICISH SYNOPSIS OF CIVIL WAR:
Basically, there was this dude Nitro who exploded the shit out of this place called Stamford, killing hundreds of people, many of whom were children. A team of superheroes called the New Warriors was there when it all happened (filming a reality TV show), and the whole disaster seemed like it was due to the incompetence of a team of heroes who were neither trained nor accountable to anyone for their actions. So, the Superhero Registration Act came into force, requiring all superheroes to register their identities with the government, or become criminals and get sent to a prison in a place called the Negative Zone which is basically like a concentration camp. Captain America wasn’t down with that. He didn’t just follow the law because it was the law – he was more into defending civil liberties. So, he formed an Anti-Registration movement. Iron Man, being a twat, started working for the government and rounding up all superheroes who opposed the law.
Some things happened, losses on both sides and whatnot.
In the final battle the Anti-Registration side (Caps’ side) was wining, and Captain America was beating the snot out of Iron Man. THEN, a group of civilians stopped Captain America from pummelling Iron Man. In that moment, Captain America realized that he was no longer fighting for the people, that he was no longer the symbol of the spirit of America. So he turned himself in, ending the Civil War.
As you’ve heard on the news Captain America was shot, but that was the end of an elaborate plot by his long-time foe the Red Skull, after the end of the Civil War.
Get this: the law he was opposing – the Superhuman Registration Act (SHRA), was widely regarded as an allegory for the US PATRIOT Act (US ’s version of the Anti-Terrorism Act). After all the SHRA was rushed through the legislative process and passed after a bombing and ever since civil liberties have been given up in favour of state security.
There is some serious symbolic and political shit going on here. Even if you have never seen – let alone read a comic book, you’ll probably find something to talk about at this month’s discussion group.
Discussion Questions:
- Captain America is supposed to embody the American dream- what is that dream? Is his death supposed to represent the effective end of that dream or is it being squashed right now? And is it something anyone other than Americans take seriously anymore?
- What sort of heroes (comic book or forreals) will usher in the post 9/11 era?
- How would a Captain Canada be different given all the Canada/U.S. relations/antagonism people love to talk about?
Want to Know More?
If you read anything, read this one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17534644/site/newsweek/
For those with more spare time/interest:
(Video: The Colbert Report) THE WORD: COMIC JUSTICE http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=83559
Pretty solid blog gives some insight into Cap’s history… http://www.sideshowtoy.com /behindtheshow/?p=2769
But where better to turn then the Marvel Directory for info on Cap? http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/c/captainamerica.htm
And if you have some forserious free time:
Believe it or not, there are comics about comic books. These ones are particularly cute, hilarious, and awesome.
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=356
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=361
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=362
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=366
What sort of heroes will usher in the post-9/11 era?
(Video: The Colbert Report) Colbert himself may be just the sort of hero we need (at least Cap thinks so, apparently): http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9964
IS THIS THE NEW CAPTAIN AMERICA ? http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9962
(Oh man, The Punisher as Captain America ? Let’s just hope it’s a new outfit.)
In other news (from the realm of comic books)…
MAINSTREAM MEDIA REACTS TO DEATH OF CAPTAIN AMERICA http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9902
When: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
We all seem concerned with protecting our privacy from governments and corporations, but what about malicious individuals?
In September 2006, Jason Fortuny, a 30 something Seattle-area graphic designer posted a fake-ad on Craig’s list (a large “community classifieds” website that posts numerous personal ads). Fortuny pretended to be a woman into serious S&M seeking a man to dominate her and inflict pain. He posted the 178 responses, in full, including identifying photographs and personal contact details on his website, claiming that anyone who would engage in such behaviour deserves to be exposed.
The stunt was publicized and later duplicated, by Michael Crook who went as far as to contact some of the respondents.
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/18/in-the-company-of-jerkoffs/
Dan Savage, the syndicated sex-columnist, who supports individuals exploring their sexual fetishes and fantasies (as long as they pertain to consenting adults) condemned Fortuny for causing the most harm to the most honest individuals who were merely playing by the rules of online dating.
Adding to the debate law professor Jonathan Zittrain argued that, “The men who replied to Fortuny’s posting did not appear to be doing anything illegal, so the outing has no social value other than to prove that someone could ruin lives online.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Zittrai
At the same time, some argue that individuals need to take some level of responsibility for personal information they voluntarily post on the internet.
Although there was some attention given to the issue in alternative media, the mainstream largely ignored the issue. Would our reaction be the same if he had ousted homosexuals in red state America? Would we feel the same if he was exploiting the privacy of teenaged girls?
Questions:
Do you think that Jason Fortuny should be criminally charged for his actions? If so what would be a fair punishment?
Do you think that all 178 respondents should be able to file a class action (law suit) again Fortuny? If so on what grounds?
Do the individual “victims” lose their right to legal action because they willingly supplied their personal details online?
Suggested Readings :
Wikipedia Internet Privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy#Jason_Fortuny_and_Craigslist
Dan Savage’s Original Column:
This year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mohammed Yunus, is known as the godfather of micro credit, i.e. the practice of giving small loans to the world’s poorest people to help them set up businesses so they can support themselves and their families. Yunus founded the Grameen Bank to carry out his goal of some day eradicating poverty entirely. Yunus was not making profits off the Grameen Bank’s success, and since then there have been many organizations (NGOs) – carrying out the same task, throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The Grameen Bank alone has distributed more than $5.3 billion to almost seven million borrowers – 96% of them women. Interest rates can be as high as 20%, and Grameen claims to recover 98% of its loans. Any profits made are reinvested in the community.
However, other entrepreneurs are now arguing that it would be more efficient if, instead of NGOs, which rely on grants for survival, there was instead a regular banking system that could cater to the world’s poor. Investors could invest their money in these banks for a certain rate of return. This would mean that the poor people to whom the loans are being paid out would in fact be helping Western businessmen make a profit. Citibank is an example of a company wishing to establish a for-profit micro-credit system in developing countries which would benefit private investors.
The proponents of this method argue that these banks would be able to gather much more capital, to reach out to a much broader potential target population – i.e. achieve “scale” – and, ultimately, have a much more profound impact than the non-profit organizations.
Many prominent philanthropists are engaged in this debate, including Pierre Omidyar, the developer of eBay, who recently devoted $100 million to the development of the for-profit microfinance industry; the Michael and Susan Dell foundation (of Dell computers), which possesses a $1.2 billion fund that has started investing in micro finance institutions in India; Google.org, a philanthropic organization with about a billion dollars to invest in health, environmental, and poverty issues worldwide; and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
There’s no required reading involved, but here’s a link if you’re interested in getting more information.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061030fa_fact1 .
Questions:
Do you think that private actors (for profit) should be engaged in poverty alleviation practices like micro-financing or should we leave development work in the hands of NGOs and international actors e.g. the UN, IMF, World Bank?
Should investors be allowed to make profit off of the world’s poor since certain models of micro-credit have successfully drawn people out of poverty?
Dove’s Campaign for “Real Beauty” promotes its line of skin-firming creams and other products by using six regular women of varying sizes and ethnicities posing cheerfully in white underwear. Dove says their models are in their 20s and range from size 6 to size 12. The average American woman is somewhere between a 12 and 14 according to a 2004 survey by Size USA. Dove’s marketing director Kathy O’Brien says that the company wants the ads to “change the way society views beauty,” and “provoke discussion and debate.” Some feminist critics point out the hypocrisy of Dove’s real beauty campaign, as Dove contradicts its “self-esteem enhancing” ads by selling anti-cellulite creams.
Questions
What do you guys think of these ads?
Are these commercials a revolutionary rejection of the super thin media ideal?
Do you think this is a positive move from both a business and/or social point of view?
Here is the main Dove photo we are talking about:
http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat3.asp?id=2287
Here are some Dove commercials:
http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/
This month we’re opening up the vault and talking about SEX & POLITICS. One of the more prominent sex scandals in Canada involves Dr. Keon (prominent politician and former heart surgeon in Ottawa). No outside reading is required for this event. All you need to know are the following key facts.
The Issue:
• Wilbert Joseph Keon, is a heart surgeon, researcher and a member of the Senator of Canada. Born in Sheenboro, Quebec, he received a Bachelor of Science from St. Patrick’s College, Carleton University and a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Ottawa.
• After a period of studying and teaching at Harvard University in Boston, he returned to Ottawa in the early 1970s, where he founded the University of Ottawa Heart Institute at the Ottawa Civic Hospital and acted as its CEO for more than thirty years until his retirement in 2004.
• In 1986 he was the first Canadian to implant an artificial heart into a human as a bridge to transplant.
• In 1990 he was appointed to the Senate by Brian Mulroney where he sits as a Conservative. In 1960 he married Anne Jennings. They have three children: Claudia, Ryan and Neil. They are still married today.
• In the 1990s Wilbert Keon was arrested for soliciting a woman for prostitution, as part of a police sting. He participated in a program, and was never charged or convicted with any offence stemming from the incident. He offered to remove himself from his position on the board at the “Heart Institute” but he did not offer to remove himself from being a “Senator”.
• After the initial arrest, Doctor Keon was of course publicly humiliated and subsequently apologized for his actions. Although the issue was hotly debated in newsrooms and daily newspapers, a good majority of Ottawa citizens were upset that Doctor Keon had even been arrested given the important work he had done in the community and felt that he should have only received a warning for his actions.
Question:
Given the preceding events should a well respected community leader such as Doctor Keon be subjected to a lighter punishment given the relatively minor crime he was involved in?
The African continent has been the location of some of the bloodiest and violent conflicts of recent decades. In Rwanda, for example, there was genocide on an unprecedented scale. In Europe and the USA there has been strong criticism of international organisations such as the United Nations for their slowness in reacting to crises in Rwanda and Somalia. However, from another point of view it could be argued that non-African organisations and former colonial powers (such as France and Britain) have no legitimate role to play in African politics and African conflicts. In this debate the proposition side is putting forward this view – that African conflicts need African solutions, not artificial resolutions imposed by non-African nations and organisations.
Question:
- Should African disputes and conflicts be handled by African countries themselves, rather than by external international organisations?
