Our
Captive Culture
and the Bio-Social
Forces that Will Free Us
The above title generates deep ambivalence. Everyone knows that money is power in many,
if not most situations; that it is often used egoistically and destructively.
They are also aware that (1) it is a necessary social tool, and (2)
that like everyone else they would like to have more of it than they do.
Sampson speculated that an observer from another world might well believe
that money is our religion. There
are similarities, in the present as well as in ancient times. Rohatyn notes that money has become blips on
a screen. This mass impersonality
has opened the door to mass, monetary fraud.
The foregoing is common knowledge, but we are concerned
here first with the costs of being under the influence, especially in our
thought processes and government, second with the contradictions between our
monetarism and our professions of democracy and ethics, and finally with a
biosocial explanation of these developments.
We must therefore consider the power of money in relation to:
Chap 9 deals with the economic system as a whole, which
is centered around profit and money, with its advantages, dangers and illusions.
Here we turn attention to particular operations associated with the
monetary aspects. In Chap 3, attention was called to the difficulty
of grasping the magnitude of numbers in the billions, in terms of common life
experiences, and an illustration was provided. All economic phenomena are transformed, including
fraud. Discover Magazine (10/98) claimed
to address money as "Root of All Evil Civilization".
It properly scratched "Evil" but only addressed some ancient
facts about money, not its present antithetical function--which is our concern
here.
Some surveys purport to show a shift away from money
motivation and toward self-expression--doing something worthwhile, freedom,
respect, taking part in decisions. These
were all factors ranked higher than money by a survey in Psychology Today.
Money rated number 12 in importance, and the editors asked: Was self-actualization
really more important than money? "We
pressed people on the subject by asking if they would accept a higher paying
job if it meant less interesting work. Almost
two-thirds of the respondents were unwilling to do so.” There must be some qualifications to a poll
of this kind. First, the sample consisted
of 60% executives and professionals (with superior incomes to begin with)
whereas the national average is 26%. This
group would not give a typical response to the editorial question immediately
above. Second, the questions were
directed at an ideal situation, not what usually prevails. We would have to ascertain what people actually
choose when they are confronted with two jobs (at least) one marked by good
pay, but little self expression, the other by substantial self expression
but relatively little pay. Unfortunately
there are no data on this. Most people do not face a situation where they have many job opportunities
with this array of different advantages, so the hypothetical question does
not mean much. It is a fundamental
defect of opinion polling to take words, or verbalized responses at face value,
without realizing that these may not have close correspondence with real behavior.
The responses are then more likely to represent social hopes, expectations,
current values, peer phrases and ideals. In fact, Psychology Today concluded: "The data suggest that people have in
mind a level of compensation that they consider adequate for them. If their pay falls below this level, then money
becomes more important than interesting work.”
Social success in America has always had some close
association with money. Apparently
the only time the American public was asked "Can a person be recognized
as a success in his community without first having a lot of money?" was
a national survey by Parade, the Sunday supplement. In response to this question, the following results were obtained.
64.3% said “No”. 32.6% said “Yes”. 3.l%
“No response”. Parade prefaced its
report with a quotation from Theodore Roosevelt, who prophesied, "The
things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, safety first
instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory
of life.” Teddy apparently was only
worried about the extremes.
The results of the survey seem unambiguous, and there
is no reason to think they have changed much over the years, or if so, this
poll should be repeated. Twice as
many people require money for "success" as do not. This would seem to be self-defeating, since
most of them have acknowledged that they can never be rich, and therefore
could never be successful. A possible
escape is built into the meaning of "success", but it is unlikely
that most respondents conceived success to be merely living in a way that
(hopefully) left the world a better place.
The most recent available poll from Gallup on this subject
disclosed that 7O% of Americans believes there is too much emphasis on wealth
and trying to become rich. Asked if
wealth should be more equally distributed in the country, 66% answered in
the affirmative (compared with 60% six years earlier) 65% agreed that the
number of rich was increasing. Asked
about poverty, 79% it was increasing in 1990 (compared with 70% in 1984). Serious ambivalence was shown when 62% said
the nation benefits from having a rich class (which would be reduced by redistribution).
That level varies with the individual and the circumstances.
Anyone acquainted first hand with business organizations, education
and other professional agencies is aware that (practically) all are actively
seeking more money and a bigger slice of the pie. They may talk about other factors, but actions will be rather uniform.
Another study, "Who Gets Ahead?" by Yankelovich
addressed in part the question of money as a badge of success. The criteria used: "The two measures of success were earned income, determined
in several ways, and occupational status as reflected on the Duncan scale,
a well established measure that ranks occupations according to the number
of years of education they require and how much people in them earn.” On the next page, the Duncan scale was explained
as being "initially worked up from surveys that asked people to rate
a standard list of occupations for desirability. Duncan found that two other measures which were easier to quantify
could be accurately used as substitutes for desirability, the number of years
an occupation requires and how much people in it earn.” From this description it appears that income
was used twice as an index.
In an earlier survey, Warner aand Abegglen inquired
about the attributes of very successful men, which is somewhat different from
the previous study because it stressed the highest levels of income. Warner was concerned with the careers of 8,000
top businessmen in order to determine what factors contributed most to their
success. A dominant characteristic
of these men was their complete concentration on advancement.
"They can focus their entire selves on their job to the exclusion
of all other matters, daydreams, family, social life or any extra interests
that might intrude.” They have no hobbies, take few vacations and
even sex is sublimated to the career. They
participate in community activities but only because it helps their career
and the company expects it. A science
magazine (Science Digest) in reviewing the book concluded that these big success
men "have superior qualities for attaching themselves to their bosses
or their business sponsors... This ability to pick up the friendship of a
useful older man early in their careers is a main distinguishing characteristic
of the men who got ahead.”
Yankelovich did not include the factors found in Warner's
study, but they must be considered, regardless of how effective one might
judge them to be at lower levels of success, or at a different time. He does mention some other omitted factors,
which probably have an effect on success, particularly ego strength, heredity
and various cultural influences. Another
factor which must play some part in getting ahead is impressive talk, known
colloquially as "hornblowing", and the associated role of servility
toward superiors, known colloquially as ass-kissing, and strongly suggested
in the Warner study. Whether these
are decreasing in effect can only be told by investigation, not by implying
that they are "out of date" as Yankelovich does. Time does not automatically
change responses. A repeat poll would be necessary, especially on those “unpleasant”
implications added later.
Some attention must be given to the book WHO GETS AHEAD:
Determinants of Economic Success, by Jencks and Associates.
It is directed at the factors that are associated with success. These are treated statistically in what appears
to be an effective manner. One of
these factors is "earnings" and income along with education, race,
genes etc. The book directs its study
at the "impact of family background, cognitive skills, personality traits,
schooling, race” on attaining success. There
is no definition of success in their book however under the heading "measures
of success" we find only income, therefore the common monetary standard
and the surveys to which we have previously referred remain unchallenged by
the Jencks analysis. For Jencks, money
is not only an important factor in success, and getting ahead, it is also
the goal and object of doing so. There is, of course, no mention of any handicap
so far as money is concerned, no interference with scientific diagnosis and
prediction.
The endless money chase occurs to a large extent as
a means of attaining ego satisfaction at ever higher levels. To call it, as Veblen did, "Conspicuous
consumption" implies it was quantitative acquisition and it may be financial
possession and power. A change in
this pattern has been foreseen by Yankelovich in his book NEW RULES.
Here it was argued that the American dream of more affluence forever
is dying down and preoccupation with the self will be replaced by what is
called "an ethic of commitment", a turn toward the "sacred
and expressive side of life", characterized by more "reverential
thinking". Other people will
be seen less as means to our ends but more as values in themselves.
We will seek deeper and more lasting human relationships to fill the
void caused by the futile solipsistic ministration to all our manifold desires.
Our old "ethic" was well characterized by
Yankelovich when he observed that we are dedicated to having endless and incompatible
demands such as:” A career and marriage and children and sexual freedom and
autonomy and being liberal and having money and choosing nonconformity and
insisting on social justice and enjoying city life and country living and
simplicity and graciousness and reading and good friends and on and on.” In
our culture, money is the important tool for getting all these things.
But now, says Yankelovich we need a new social ethic and we have a
"poignant yearning to elevate the sacred.”
This highly subjective, even religious terminology is superfluous,
but possibly an added effort to appeal to everyone.
We are interested here in addressing his "hits and errors".
Yankelovich recognizes that people are slowly learning that "duty
to self is not a viable guide to conduct.”
Slowly indeed. It is not workable,
that is, satisfying to our basic drives in the long run, (to put his message
in terms of the bio-social theory).
The Yankelovich analysis errs in extrapolating from
the personal to the mass-social level uncritically. It is one thing to seek closer ties with known individuals, to identify
with and sacrifice for them mutually. It
is something else to identify with and sacrifice for populations, both within
one's own nation, and in other nations. The latter occurs much less readily and indeed will be at a low
level while it may be at a high level in the interpersonal. We must find other factors to account for and
anticipate more "unselfish" behavior on a large scale.
Yankelovich declares that the new ethics requires "commitment".
The logical rejoinder is Why? His
answer: "For the fundamental decisions of life
we inevitably fall back on ethical judgments about what is right and wrong.”
Not necessarily, and not most effectively.
The real reason we change is because the consequences of more consideration
for others are finally perceived as more satisfying to us than the results
of self-absorption, at least over any more extended period of time.
We may safely conclude that Yankelovich's analysis (and
prognosis) in NEW RULES was sound, but premature, as are many such predictions
about large scale changes in human belief systems. His forecast seemed the very opposite to events
of the 80s and 90s. Under Reagan,
Bush and supply side economics, the material and money values settled in with
a vengeance. As they saw it, emphasizing
wealth and monetary profit was not only necessary but it was an ideal which
would "trickle down" to the poorer folks, but supply side economics
did not work quite as touted. Such
panaceas must have time to "blow themselves out" before people are
prepared to turn toward other combinations of policy.
Another book with a similar message was HABITS 0F THE
HEART, by a team of writers. It argued
that "for over a 100 years a large part of the American people, the middle
class, has imagined that the virtual meaning of life lies in the acquisition
of ever increasing status, income and authority", supposedly the source
of genuine freedom. It urged that
"a morally concerned social movement informed by Biblical and republican
sentiment has stood us in good stead...” which it referred to as "moral
ecology". Thinking back on our
history, the "stead" was inadequate when it came to the issue of
slavery. Southern religious leaders
were almost uniform in support of that institution, and as described elsewhere
in this book, the real dynamic was something quite different.
In more recent times, how much does money and profit
continue to influence our values, beliefs and ethics? One diagnosis of business practices was offered by Reder (IN PURSUIT
OF PRINCIPLE AND PROFIT). It presents
"good news" in the form of specific companies, which aimed at elevating
the "rules" by means of ethical audits--periodic checks on the performance
in "social responsibility". Commendable though these efforts may be, they
are often formalities, and no statistics were offered as to their frequency.
In fact Reder admitted, "We've seen that our corporations continue
to view the world through the lens of the quarterly report.”
The Current Controversies Series presented pro and con
positions on the subject ETHICS. Focusing
on ethics in business, two essays were revealing. One by Professor Machan (courtesy of the Heritage
Foundation) offered only general arguments in favor, but no facts bearing
on the case. Another essay by K. Labich
(of Fortune Magazine) asserted the negative position, well-exampled.
There had been prior surveys on this subject appearing in The Harvard
Business Review. It polled 1,700 businessmen regarding unethical practices
among business executives-- conclusions from men directly "in the know". It was found that four out of every seven said
that businessmen would violate ethical codes if they thought they could get
away with it. Four out of five admitted
unethical practices in their own business.
Some years
later, the Review repeated the survey and found that there was some improvement,
but monetary considerations still tended to overpower ethics. The later survey did show that executives were
more cynical about their peers. When
asked about their own beliefs on ethics and social responsibility, the majority
was in favor of both. It is of interest
that polls by Gallup (and by the U.S. News and World Report) found that the
public was more optimistic about ethical practices in industry than were the
industrialists themselves. Progress,
as claimed by some writers is very probable, even allowing for the rationalization
which is usually involved, but current news from the business front shows
that there is much work to be done.
Ethical appeals are historic. Ethics courses are being introduced into education
of various professions, but these are of questionable effect. The courses customarily are treated academically
rather than operationally, not coming to grips with real life situations,
for example visiting with some businessmen, lawyers or other gentlemen who
were in prison for failing in “social responsibility". In science a hypothesis or theory that does
not correspond with observable operations or explain these consistently (and
under what circumstances they change) is replaced by one that does. We must therefore examine some cases of this
departure and then consider the bio-social forces that enable us explain better
and to anticipate and guide behavior in a more consistsent manner.
No matter where Americans turn in the mass media, they
must endure advertising. Most of the
income of papers, TV, radio and even most magazines comes from commercial
announcements--usually about 3:1. Thus
in the final analysis, money has great influence on the media and exerts this
by way of advertising. In our present
system if the medium did not attract sufficient advertising it would disappear.
In other words, modern managers are restricted by advertisers and will
think twice or more times before saying anything the advertiser might not
like. Nor should it be thought that the advertiser is wholly free of confining
and nonlogical forces. He is only
passing them along. It will be necessary
for us to examine numerous examples of this phenomenon.
Twitchell in his book AD CULT: U.S.A. provides multitudinous
illustrations of advertising tinsel, both verbal and pictorial.
He seemed to be intrigued by the expressive display, and thus claims
that he "loves advertising". Twitchell
is not alone in his defense of the process.
A book by Goodrum and Dalrymple (when in preparation) had a chapter
of "accumulated examples of assaults on our intelligence, taste, credulity
and good sense... In no time at all it was so filled with examples that we
abandoned it.” Too much evidence.
Twitchell perceived the danger. He compared the joyful recognition responses
of students to ad slogans, with their lack of interest in and knowledge about
major facts of modern times. The author
didn't think advertising usually makes much difference in sales, but people
know it well and are negative but passive about it. He maintains, "Advertising does not invent or satisfy desire.
It expresses desire with the hope of exploiting it.”
In other words, advertisers are driven by the hope of hitting the hot
button to win the jackpot, even if their chances are slim.
A book by Schudson faces the fact that "Advertisement
is propaganda" and enumerates some false assumptions about it.
He defends "price advertising" as a constructive service
but was probably not aware of the adroit modern obfuscations such as "rebates"
on car sales and other complications. Schudson identifies "Sales without Advertising"
which includes such products as romance paperbacks, generic drugs (also cocaine).
His best example is the VW Bug, which was selling quite well before
it launched into Berbach’s highly successful ad campaign.
Still for some companies advertising has a high correlation with business
success, even survival, despite Twitchell's minimization. In spite of his stellar performance on the techniques by the agencies,
he says almost nothing about any relation to profit/sales, with the following
exceptions:
This suggests
that there is very little relation between them, and that advertisers don't
gain anything economically from the process.
Put in simplest terms, they can't afford to risk not advertising; it
might kill them. Twitchell makes a
startling charge: "Take away
the tax deduction business gets for advertising and most spending would disappear
overnight.” A force that powerful,
and then not another word on the subject! He also concludes that if advertising
was effective, agencies would charge by the increase in sales, not by how
much media space was purchased..but will they stand and wait to see the alleged
sales results? Might it be claimed
that other factors were at work? Will
agencies go for a “maybe” rather than sure repayment? Doubtful
Twitchell says nothing about the power of advertisers
to influence reports of news and any facts not in their interest--as if this
was unimportant compared to getting public attention. He concludes: "Advertisers are not interested in what we claim
to want or what scientists claim we should want, but in determining what indeed
we do want, as tracked by what and how we purchase.” Science, as we have seen, ignores "shoulds"
as irrelevant. It deals with real
events, in this case what people actually do, its causes and the consequences
(as Twitchell finally concludes). At the turn of the century, the Fox TV Channel
repeatedly appealed to its audience to “watch responsibly.” This was a fascinating
inversion of the rule to ”present responsibly”. The satirist Johnathan Swift
was reported to have said: ”Happiness is the possession of being perpetually
well deceived.” Apparently Americans have reason to be happy.
The subject
of advertising is approached differently by Rothenberg (in WHERE SUCKERS MOON).
He made an intensive study of how Subaru embarked on an all-out attempt
to recoup its flagging sales by using a new ad agency, which had no experience
with autos. It was a true story of hype, mythology, confusion and waste. The result for Subaru was a reduction in sales
for the following year. Naturally
the media and the advertisers bombard the public with self-serving arguments
on behalf of the system of advertising. According
to them, advertising is necessary if the people are to buy anything. Remove
it and sales would drop precipitately. In actual fact, every consumer would have to
continue buying food and merchandise at more or less a constant rate. Most people are not sitting on a large pile
of surplus money, which they would simply refuse to spend but for the blandishments
of the ad men. Everyone knows this
is true, but it is usually left unspoken. In reality, advertising is used to determine which brand a consumer
buys, not whether he/she buys products at all. How successful are advertisers
at selling to the people? It varies.
An early case was Northwesten Mutual Life Insurance Co., which conducted
a nationwide poll to see how well it was known by the public.
It came in 34th. Two weeks
later it was third. This remarkable
leap in recognition was because it spent enough money sponsoring the Olympic
summer games on TV. Subaru represented
a result nearly opposite.
In 1993 the total spent on advertising in the U.S. was
140 billion dollars, with TV in its various forms getting over half. The media are all in hot competition for these
advertising billions, each claiming more success than the others in some respect--greatest
recall, most often consulted, least offensive etc. The Newspaper Advertising Bureau was pleased
to report a survey where women were asked which medium was the most silly
and childish, most annoying, hardest to believe etc. Television rated as worst in all categories. The psychologist Erich Fromm pointed out that
such responses don't really matter. The viewer enters a fantasy world.
He ‘knows’ intellectually the toothpaste won't really make him sexy.”
Customer selection is better made from consulting Consumer's Union
than from being guided by the advertiser, but the consumer clings to the half-conscious
hope that "something might happen.” So while he might rate TV advertising low,
it still gets him to buy the product.
When cigarette commercials went off TV, the anti smoking
ads went off simultaneously. (Apparently
it wasn't cricket to warn people against cancer, emphysema and other ailments
caused by smoking so long as the poison wasn't being pushed on the medium).
At the same time we were recognizing the fatalities caused by smoking,
the government was also subsidizing the cultivation of tobacco, so the right
hand seemed to pay no attention to what the left hand was doing, or put in
a more informative way, special interests had power, no matter what they were
doing.
From time to time, television asks the viewers if they
think the ads, however poor, are worth having free TV. Ordinarily about 80% answer in the affirmative.
People do not challenge the very legitimacy of this question.
There is no such thing as free TV.
This time must be paid for. The
only questions are who does it and under what circumstances? The public will concede, if it is put to them
that (1) the advertiser pays for the time, (2) this cost is added on to the
price of the product, and (3) therefore the people themselves are really paying
for the television advertisements and programs. Obviously they could pay this same amount outright
instead of through hidden price increases, and get the same show without the
commercials. The survey itself is
a propaganda technique.
Company managers were surveyed (3,400 of them) and asked
to respond to this proposition: “Advertisements
do not present a true picture.” 49% of them agreed with it, and 43% disagreed;
the rest could not decide. We may say that more managers believe the ad men are misrepresenting
than believe they are accurate. 0f course if misrepresentations sell more of a particular manager's
good, he might not rate untruth in advertising quite the same way.
Another question posed to the ad-men themselves as to what they thought
of their function. The Central Educational Network presented a
public program entitled "Adland" in which executives were interviewed
and asked questions about their work. Naturally
they justified it wholeheartedly, with these responses: (1) It was work which required skill and creativeness,
(2) It leads to success, i.e. proven power in influencing the buying habits
of the audience, and (3) It was fun. Probably the executives had put their fingers on the main appeal
of the business--although profitability surely should have been mentioned,
but was passed over.
Interestingly, none of these advantages of the trade
related to the question of debits or credits to society. (1) It requires skill and creativeness not
only to think up clever ads, but also to rob banks successfully, (2) Success
as measured by determining what people buy is no cause for satisfaction if
you get them to buy more cigarettes, and (3) the pickpocket probably has fun. Advertisements may be entertaining, clever
and also accurate and therefore not "all bad". Louis Harris once sampled public opinion about
advertising and found that "no more than 12% of the consumers could bring
themselves to describe most claims as "generally accurate".
He added that the ad men formerly passed off these complaints but admitted
they had wildly underestimated the consumer revolt.
Judging by how little things have changed, it would be more accurate
to say that Harris wildly overestimated it.
A logical public response to ads will not soon occur.
A standard defense of advertising is that it provides
essential information people need before they can decide about expenditures.
This is a legitimate aim but most advertising makes little contribution
to it. If we wanted important data most reliably we would consult Consumer's
Union or some dependable testing agency that does this job well and with a
fraction of the advertising cost. Gallup
asked people to list the agencies they thought were most dangerous to the
country. Advertising was near the
top, however if Erich Fromm is correct this is only an intellectual reaction
and is no threat to the advertiser. The evidence supports him.
The power of money in the media was described by Ben
Bagdikian (former Dean of the Journalism School at Berkeley) in his book THE
MEDIA MONOPOLY. Specific cases were
provided in abundance. Only a few
highlights can be reviewed here. In
the 1982 edition of his book Bagdikian found that 5O corporations controlled
one half of the media in the U.S. In the 1992 edition there were fewer than
20 in control, resulting from mergers and takeovers.
It was shown that these media obtained about five times as much income
from their advertisers as from their readers.
Thus it becomes very difficult to go contrary to the wishes of those
who provide the primary financing and the "wrong" kind of news is
less likely to appear. Further support
was provided by Carl Jensen in his books CENSORED and 20 YEARS OF MEDIA CENSORSHIP
containing a small catalog of examples of the way in which censorship quietly
operates and how little appears which is objectionable to the media magnates.
Bagdikian reported that the Nixon and Reagan administrations
made "the most severe attacks in this century on the freedom of the press...
trying to put more of the media under corporate control”. This effort was
exceeded by the Gingrichian drive to eliminate public broadcasting during
the 1990s. The House Speaker claimed
that "Rush Limbaugh is public broadcasting” even though Limbaugh was
demonstrably supported by corporation money and reflected its interests.
The Gannett Media Corporation appeared often in the
MEDIA MONOPOLY because of its size and commercial success. On one occasion it drove another paper out
of business. The other paper sued
and Gannett settled out of court. When
the reporters began looking at the records of the case, Gannett had these
sealed off. One reporter asked the
Gannett representative, Allen Neuharth, to justify settling freedom of the
press cases in secret. Neuharth replied: "That’s just business. I
don't think it has anything to do with the first amendment.” This means that what is profitable comes first,
and the constitution comes second. Business takes precedence over press freedom,
or perhaps we would better conclude the meaning as "Business must have
the freedom to decide which information can be made public and which cannot.”
All of this is remindful of an observation by Abraham Lincoln, which is relevant
to the subject. Said Lincoln:
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him
for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.” Lincoln reached the obvious conclusion: "Plainly
the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon the definition of the word liberty.”
Cases of this kind constitute proof that the public is a captive audience
of media controllers. Of course that
does not mean the magnates are personally exercising the control; it operates
silently down the line of their employees who perceive, often unconsciously
what is "appropriate" and what is not.
Bagdikian addressed the "Tobacco Story" in
the U.S. as of 1933. A team at Johns
Hopkins University led by Dr. Raymond Pearl made a study of 6,800 cases, which
revealed clearly that smokers got sick and died much earlier than non-smokers.
The more they smoked, the more they died.
Dr. Pearl delivered his paper to the New York Academy of Medicine.
Reporters were present from all the eight New York dailies. Only two covered the story (at the bottom of
an inside page). In 1953 The American
Medical Association refused to accept tobacco ads in its journal, JAMA. 92% of national papers took no notice of this.
As most readers are aware it was not until the 1980s that organized
efforts to break through the ban succeeded and bore fruit, fifty years after
the first scientific study. This story will be reviewed in more detail
in Chap.8. Today the government still
subsidizes the growing of tobacco, while loudly condemning the use of this
drug, which has killed more people than all our wars.
More recently Herman and McChesney described the growth
of media concentration to the global scale. The big media firms argue that they must merge to stay competitive.
"Wall Street loves these centralizing mergers and has essentially
removed anti- trust barriers to media concentration.”
These writers continue: "Because
of increasing economics of scale and other benefits of large size, media ownership
tends to become more concentrated over time, aligning the media more closely
with larger corporate interests.”
The most current examples of giant mergers were Disney
with ABC, Turner with Time-Warner and CBS with Westinghouse, and finally ALO
with Time-Warner. One defender of
the process (Dennis)--a product of the Gannett chain, argued that journalistic
enterprises must follow the economic trend of "greater concentration,
fewer firms and larger concentration of activity... which does not diminish
freedom and number of voices"--a presentation which was barren of facts,
in contrast to Bagdikian's. The media
may not yet be a monopoly, but on the record, oligopolies are noted for their
negative effect on competition and economic freedom.
Corporations respond to negative news about their behavior
with a barrage of commercials designed to rescue their image. A survey reported by The Public Relations Journal
said their media ads amounted to 941 million dollars per year as of 1987,
which as one observer noted "was enough money to finance four or five
presidential campaigns at that time.” The
result was that their image improved in the polls, but not the issues that
originally challenged that image. William
Greider in WHO WILL TELL THE PEOPLE concluded that "organized money is
ascendant and “organized people' are inert because money has learned how to
do modern politics more effectively than anyone else.”
We have noted the necessary independence of (social)
science. Also that there are constant
pressures on scientists to subordinate their discoveries to the restricted
aims of organizations having great influence.
Baritz made a study of these "SERVANTS OF POWER among the social
scientists. He reviewed prominent
cases where psychology, sociology and other specialties were influenced to
coordinate with industrial profit. His
general conclusion was that management "has no trouble in getting the
scientists to accept its premises.” The
reason is because they control one of the most powerful positive reinforcers
in shaping belief and behavior... money.
Dereistic thinking becomes more probable and so unconsciously that
the parties are probably oblivious to the process.
Baritz emphasizes that it is not a matter of coercion or even intentional
pressures. Expressing it rather poetically,
he claims that "the fires of pressure and control on a man are now kindled
in his own thinking.”
Without perhaps realizing it, Baritz also undermined
normative assumptions about why industry employs social science, even for
apparently altruistic ends. He alleged
that management does not use social science out of any sense of social responsibility
but from a need to reduce costs. Walter Reuther, a veteran of the wars between capital and labor
said, "The one sure way of making them (the employers) socially responsible
is to make them financially responsible for what they do or fail to do.”
Moral appeals have had little effect, but demonstrating the consequences
of failure to take social needs into account makes a real difference (especially
if the result might be a suit or a strike.)
There is no question that social science can help industries
function in a way that also better satisfies the basic needs of its workers
and clients in the long run, nor is there any escape from the conclusion that
leadership must decide about the changes to be made in policies and procedures
in the workplace. Social scientists
can make a constructive contribution to the process, providing they can recognize
and deal with more short- sighted pressures. This could be an accurate referent for what
Baritz and Reuther meant by "responsible.”
Baritz sees as the chief danger that social scientists
may be putting the power to control in the hands of management. Mayo is cited as an example of this error,
referring to "Mayo's unshakable conviction that the managers of the United
States composed an elite, which had the ability and therefore the right to
rule the rest of the nation.” True
social scientists cannot keep trying to satisfy special interests at the expense
of the basic requirements of the population (although we have earlier noted
some cases to the contrary), because the costs are too high. Baritz observes that "throughout their
professional history, industrial social scientists, without prodding from
anyone have accepted the norms of America's managers.”
Some observers saw it as coming down to an issue of
ends and means, that the social scientists could only address the latter. So far as the managers are concerned, the ultimatea
criterion is still profit: "Managers
are forced by the necessities of the business world to measure success or
failure by the yardstick of the balance sheet", in which employees share
some interest. Nevertheless there
are other factors, and although some progress has been made since Baritz on
the status of the workers (and the social scientists) there is still a myopic
perception with the bottom line. There is another reason for reducing the Baritizian
danger, a movement toward more informed and trained public interest management,
represented in theory by analysts, like Drucker (or Burnham) and in practice
by nations like Japan, Germany and Sweden. The bio-social scientists work cooperatively with this development;
because they perceive the cost of doing otherwise is too great.
We may now consider some perceptions of this change.
The ability of money to generate behavior that we could
refer to as unethical, illegal, corrupt--or better, dereistic--is seen both
economically and politically in both parties, at the highest level. The economic power was demonstrated by Professor
Etzioni of George Washington University, who studied the Fortune 500 companies
and found that 62% of them were involved in one or more "significant
illegalities". An instructive case was that of General Electric.
It was accused of hiding design flaws in its nuclear plant, manufactured
for Washington Public Power (WPPSS),
which had to spend many millions on repairs and sued GE for fraud.
The judge characterized GE testimony as "forced, sometimes forlorn
and sometimes incredible.” He referred
to company documents showing that GE knew of the potential dangers at an early
stage, but did nothing because "the full scale tests required would have
been very expensive.”
The most probable
explanation is that plant managers are always under heavy pressure to cut
costs and increase income. Their status
and positions depend on it. Unsurprisingly, the above cases did not receive
wide attention in the mass media. The political syndrome of intellectual captivity
is shown compellingly in the contradiction between our claims of press and
electoral freedom with the actual record. Charles Lewis' books THE BUYING OF CONGRESS
and THE BUYING OF THE PRESIDENT, 2000 (representing the Center for Public
Integrity) list many recent cases
of how money dominates both legislative and executive performance. We have noted the two books on CENSORSHIP
by Jensen, representing the Sonoma State University project.
The Supreme Court put the judicial capstone on the power
of money to influence elections by its Buckley decision, equating the degree
of campaign finance with the degree of press freedom. It ruled: The more money
invested, the greater the freedom (but whose?). This information is no surprise, but we must explain why it occurs
and why nothing much is done about it, counter to what would be expected if
people took seriously real democracy on the one hand, and and corruption on
the other. For example why do they not vote out those electees who do nothing
and go along with the system as it is? Some
major reasons:
The facts and logic are a manifest
of captivity. In other words, people
are captives in several different ways. Any significant change seems to require
a crisis, demonstrating rather conclusively that something is seriously wrong.
They will complain (when polled) about the nature and behavior of the congress.
Operationally they keep sending back their incumbents at a ratio of
about 80 or 90% (without term limits). Queried about this they probably respond that
the trouble lies with all those other electees, representing different interests.
What can be done, will be done or should be done?
It is not the role of science to advocate, exhort and convert, but
to explain and predict, in the best way known. Obviously there is no great
protest and opposition when things are going well enough for most people,
therefore the questions remain: How and when might these practices change?
What are we most likely to do about them?
What form will the costs take? (To
be addressed later)
The relation between money and congress has been a long
story in American history. Sabato
and Simpson detailed some rather recent examples in their book DIRTY LITTLE
SECRETS: The Persistence of Corruption in American politics. They warned at the outset that our political
campaigns are sinking ever deeper into a bog of sleaze.” In response to a regular Roper poll question:
"Can you trust the government to do what is right?" 76% responded
"Yes" in 1964, while by 1996, it was only 19%.
This may, of course reflect some increase in public knowledge (or sensitivity)
as well as a lesser legislative performance.
It is not a new story. Greed
was the golden rule during the late 19th century.
In the latter part of the 20th century, the Democrats had control of
congress and all the possible perks, legal and illegal.
Sabato and Simpson take the cases of Rep. Carr and Senator
Lautenberg (Democrats) as reflecting how political money can corrupt. Carr,
a Michigan congressman, repeatedly extracted money from Florida firms because
he headed the subcommittee that appropriates money for projects in their region.
Then in the 1970s came the Republican savior, Newt Gingrich.
As a candidate he had no money, but he railed against corruption and
promised to tell the truth, discuss issues with people and be 100% ethical
and free of special interest. He became
"the freshman that roared". He
was described as lobbing "accusations at virtually everyone who stood
in his way, with astonishing effectiveness.”
He used a political campaign committee (GOPAC) illegally to gain control
of the House of Representatives. He had remarkable success in the 1994 election,
accomplished by intensively training his new cadre of neo-conservative candidates
to use the "right" emotional verbiage to debase the opponents and
exalt themselves--repetitiously and successfully, as described in The New
Yorker. GOPAC tapes were distributed
on how to "speak like Newt”. Words that were used to define Democrats included
the following: Sick, traitors, corrupt, bizarre, cheat, steal, devour, self-serving
and criminal rights. These words were
designed to "punch through the established media" according to Gingrich.
The role of electoral money has been growing to the
point that most political leaders will agree, at least verbally, that it is
in need of more social control and regulation.
Business Week described what it called "Feeding Frenzy at the
Money Trough". It predicted: "The money chase is bound to speed
up, and no one has much interest in stopping it... neither the lawmakers who
want to keep their jobs, nor the companies that need a favor or two from them”. The Center for Responsible Politics assembled
and published records of the amount of money received and spent by candidates
for national office, from all 50 states. It showed that as of 1990, the big spenders were winning elections
by a ratio of 4:1. PAC money was the
major focus of attention.
Herrnson, writing under the Congressional Quarterly,
said that in the 1992 election PAC money was up by 52% over 1990, reaching
678 million dollars. The National
Review, describing the reform efforts of Rep. Linda Smith, summarized a defense
of PAC operations as reflected in the campaign of Rep. Ehrlich (R. Md.) When his audience offered some objections to
his PAC funds Ehrlich asked all the nurses present to hold up their hands,
then all farmers etc. until almost all hands were raised. The he said, "I told them ‘every hand in this room was a special
interest’”. Admittedly a clever rationalization,
it led the audience to believe that each one of them was a genuine special
interest, and suggested that Ehrlich was going to represent them all--equally.
In the first place, they do not conform to the usual conception of
that term. If all the occupational groups were to be given
consideration (to the same degree) they would no longer be "special".
And if Rep. Ehrlich were indeed to do what he implies, it would equate
to democratic-representative government.
He could be depended upon to do like all the others and represent most
effectively the interests that treat him the best and forward his incumbency...his
audience of course unquestioning.
MONEY TALKS, by Clawson, Neustadtl and Scott, was a
study of the operations of corporate PACs, based on extensive interviews of
the PAC directors (who remained anonymous).
The authors' conclusions were usually reflected in statements from
the directors themselves, and thus dependable evidence. The latter assert that their monetary contributions to legislators
help their corporate executives "gain access" to lawmakers--over
what others gain. 0f course they must
be sure that they are “getting through". One PAC manager commented: "If we are sending money to someone and
they are not aware of it, we are screwing up.”
They give to both sides in order to keep a foot in all doors.
Former Senate leader Bob Dole was quoted in The Wall
Street Journal as saying, "When PACs give money, they expect something
in return other than good government.” (There was no statement about the relation
between these disparate aims). The
authors (of MONEY TALKS) describe the methods of making sure that their message
gets through...along with success at getting exemptions worth billions. On the other side, minimizers of PACs argue
that the various special interests counteract each other (referred to as "pluralism”)
however the Clawson group showed that "these false premises cannot be
supported.”
Some observers denigrate the concern over campaign financing,
for example Samuelson writing in Newsweek argued that the effect of money
on elections is less than commonly thought, citing a study by Alexander and
Corrado. He judged the amount spent
in the 1992 election (claimed to be 3.2 billion) as only 0.5% of GDP and therefore
not excessive. Also in 1994 he said
of the biggest spenders, eight were defeated. Samuelson concluded that the campaign reform attention “ thus diverts
us from wrestling with the important issues which divide the nation.”
There are defects in his analysis. One misconception is not the amount spent but
how it affects the winner's vote in Washington. Another is the fact that the 1994 election was not typical and even
here 60% success by the big spenders is not altogether inconsequential.
Finally, the big spenders, as well as most other candidates must expend
absurd amounts of time and energy on money- grubbing.
The objector will cite cases like Huntington and Perot who spent millions
(of their own money) but were electoral failures.
This kind of anecdotal evidence—however interesting--must give way
to statistical data. Incumbents generally have more money than challengers
therefore they are not likely to vote in favor of leveling the playing field
(campaign reform). Their assumptions are confirmed by their success.
Stern (in THE BEST CONGRESS MONEY CAN BUY) pointed to
three million dollars the average senate candidate must raise (at that time)
and concluded "Even the most idealistic senator has no alternative, other
than to rely on special interest groups.”
He added "More than half that money comes from outside special
interest PACs, " Stern provided the most dependable, present method for
revealing the influence of campaign contributions on congressional voting. He considered the sugar subsidy, the dairy
subsidy, the hospital cost containment bill and the domestic content bill
on U.S. cars. In each case, he compared the amount each congressman received
from the particular lobbying business with the percent probability that he
voted for the subsidy. In each case
of those receiving the maximum contribution, 100% voted for the subsidy. As expected, the percentages dropped concomitantly
with the amount of money received. This high correlation is no accident.
The power of money over political campaigns has been
rising in public attention. We have
seen that it is often an important factor in the actual voting and shown to
be a determining factor in the voting record of legislators on the hill. There
was no follow-through on Stern’s proposal. This presents a seeming anomaly
of strong public sentiment for a cleanup, but little or no congressional action.
If the public was truly concerned about the "best congress money
can buy"--as any elementary concept of democracy makes it--then the voters
would promptly turn out those representatives who stalled on or opposed bills
offered to curb the electoral power of money.
But the electorate keeps sending back the candidates who had opposed
campaign reform in the next election. This
is a pattern that holds for many different political issues.
On this subject rationalization flows freely. Sen. McConnell (R, KY) opposed any legal restrictions
against campaign contributions, employing the bogus analogy that it is only
like people volunteering their efforts to help the party or the candidate
(Interview, WASHINGTON WEEK 10/24/97) The Washington Post observed that the
opposition to the McCain- Feingold bill had stripped it down to where "it
does nothing to diminish the advantages" of the wealthy or the incumbents.
At this point the GOP was railing against the Democrats for calling
in a shower of soft money from questionable sources, but ignoring the fact
that the Republicans had called in more soft funds in the last three elections.
We can explain the above contradictions in terms of: (1) the particular
legislator represents local interests well enough to satisfy his constituency,
(2) the voters are demonstrably ignorant of how their representative had been
voting, and (3) the incumbents are at a great advantage in raising money and
are not about to weaken or relinquish it.
What are the prospects for change?
At this time the House has surprised many observers
by passing a campaign reform bill. The
Senate committee would probably be expected to use cloture to stop the McCain-Feingold
bill from coming to a vote (where a minority has control over legislation).
A reform will be eventually passed, but watered down with amendments. However as indicated, PACs and other special interests are aware
of so many loopholes that they are not worried by any particular law, which
might appear to put them under serious restraint.
An ABC-Washington Post poll showed that 79% completely
or mostly agreed that "Money is the most important factor influencing
public policies”, but then if asked whether the government might help to regulate
this money effect, Gallup usually found that 60-70% of the people express
the opinion that government has too much effect. As Drucker observed, "It has become fashionable
these last years to be anti-government... governments have become powerless
against, the onslaught of special interest groups.” The Clawson authors conclude: "Our society
takes private property, the free market and the buying and selling of everything
and anything as givens... Economic democracy is regarded as not just impractical
but somehow immoral.”
Sorauf in his book MONEY IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS describes
"the losing struggle to regulate" observing "little progress,
little change.” He raised the question
"How much is too much?” which almost everyone has trouble answering,
and therefore slides past it. He predicts
that reform is possible under one or two circumstances: (1) a catastrophe of some sort, like Watergate--but
nothing approaching that as yet, and (2) capture of policy making branches
by one party, legislative and executive control that can break any filibuster.
So far as law is concerned, the Buckley Decision by
the Supreme Court created what Neuborne called "a fundraising frenzy,
feeding on the uncontrollable money habit wherever and however they can.” The Court is reportedly preparing to review
this case, although few expect it to make any fundamental change. Recent surveys suggest that the public is indifferent
about campaign over-financing and even corruption. It is logical to conclude
that this reflects on the failure of democracy-- and that it hasn't been sufficiently
costly to them as yet.
What might be done to change things? There have been many proposals for regulating
cash flow into political campaigns such as term limits, balanced budget, purely
public financing etc. One simple start
would be to reduce the length and therefore the costs of campaigns, as some
European countries have done. For example the British House of Commons reports its "Electoral
Timetable" is completed in 19 days. This compares to our presidential and congressional
election, running for two months formally, to which must be added the four
months taken by the primaries, totaling over a half year.
Another procedure would be to see that the voters have
the real record of their representatives' vote on the issues... especially
in relation to the contributors, along the lines of Stern's technique as described
earlier. Then they would know which
incumbent was more under the influence when the chips were down. As a result the "commercials" would
be less effective and also probably less abundant.
When Gallup asked the public what they thought about
federal funding of national elections, 50% approved it and 43% disapproved.
Perhaps the 43% would respond as described by Stern:
"What! Me pay for the
campaigns of all those lousy politicians?" Stern goes on to point out
that we are paying either way. Generally
speaking in America there has been resistance to federal activity on any issue
and a feeling that private function is the key to problems. Of course government does provide a fixed amount
to presidential candidates (who meet certain requirements) to which there
is surprisingly little objection--but judged as quite inadequate by the candidates.
MONEY TALKS offers reasonable proposals for improvement but concludes
that reform is not imminent. Most
PAC directors know that bills have been previously offered in congress-- 1984,
1990, and l99l, but did not pass because most members want usable loopholes
maintained.
This title was used to characterize gambling in the
U. S. (By Frontline, TV). A more accurate
description would be "Easy Come"--for the casinos,let the machinery
continue producing a generous flow. It
would be "Easy Go" (for the gamblers shelling out to the casinos).
40% of the U.S. population indulges in gambling and they pay out 500
billion dollars a year, which is more than they spend on houses and cars.
The industry is under corporation control and is euphemistically referred
to as "gaming". The term
game is defined as recreation, sport, fun, and amusement. Gambling is just manipulated money changing hands. Chance alone does not determine the outcome,
otherwise the casinos could not make their great profits. Statistics are always loaded against the gambler
(which he will admit intellectually but not operationally)
Even educated people will invest money at odds so small
that they would laugh at or ridicule them elsewhere. They are captivated by an illusion. Gambling reflects an old saying: "A fool
and his money are soon parted.” What
then is the real motivation for this waste of money? The casinos call it part of the entertainment
industry. If the victims feel sufficiently
"entertained" while losing their shirts then they accept the label.
Many Americans are eternal optimists and dreamers.
They nurture endless hopes of hitting it big.
They are also regaled constantly with ads hailing a previous winner
and encouraged to visualize themselves receiving a check for a million or
more dollars.
Gambling is justified by claims of thousands of jobs
provided, but thousands of jobs are provided by drugs and the underworld.
Another defense is that some state lottery proceeds are used to aid public
education and improving the environment. A non-racist defense: When American
Indians turn to Casinos (now breaking records) they are enabled to recoup
some of the wealth stolen from them by the invading Europeans. Each of these virtues could be attained by
more direct and constructive means.
State and national governments have gotten into the
gambling business, in the form of lotteries and card playing. George Hardie's gambling parlor, The Bicycle
Club was seized by the U.S. government, which continued its operation and
was making 35 million dollars a year. This
calls attention to the fact of inadequate regulation. Legislation was repeatedly introduced to control it, which passed
in public vote but was killed behind closed doors. As an example Senator Lockyer (CA) voted in committee to defeat
his own bill, claiming erroneously that add-ons had changed it too much. The
politicians just learned to be meretricious.
The gambling industry funnels millions into lobbyists
who work, rather successfully, to defeat or sidetrack regulatory legislation.
The five-year total spent on lobbyists was 100 million dollars.
As in the long running history of tobacco, no laws were passed which
the industry didn’t like. The natural
response is to ask whether the government should control gambling. Does it fit into the category of tobacco or
alcohol or drugs? The only feasible
role for the government would be to set up and enforce some rules restraining
and limiting excess profiteering, misrepresentation, secrecy and lawbreaking.
We cannot keep people from throwing their money away if they want to--captives
though they may be. Gambling has a long history and probably a
long future.
Some cities have succeeded in excluding casinos, but
most have either not tried or been unable to resist the appeal. Las Vegas, Nevada, formerly regarded as "Sin
City" turned into the fastest growing city in the U.S. and plans to double
the number of casinos in five years. This
is sold to the population as bringing jobs, prosperity, civic growth and improvement,
resulting from phenomenal profits. Few cities are able to resist the lure when
it is dangled in front of them. A penetrating study of gambling in the U.S.
was Robert Goodman's book, THE LUCK BUSINESS.
He first reviews its growth, as follows: "From 1988 to 1994 casino revenues nearly doubled from 8 billion
to 15 billion. In total, Americans
bet nearly 400 billion on all forms of legal gambling, growing at the rate
of 15% per year.” The question becomes:
Why? The author points out that the
proposal for new casinos seldom mentions specific games, or why anyone finds
them exciting. A lobby soon appears
and produces effective techniques for selling the gambling business to communities
through PR and political pressures. Goodman provides numerous examples. He noted how retiring public officials would be given high paying
positions in the "industry".
In Illinois, this included a governor, a senator, house
majority leader and a mayor. In the
early stages money flowed abundantly into the casinos and riverboats, but
as reported it was "money that is being diverted from goods and services
in other local businesses. Instead
of bringing new wealth to the community, convenience gambling enterprises
cannibalize the local economy.” Four
years after the big casinos moved into Atlantic City, about a third of that
city's retail businesses had closed and Atlantic City lost over one fourth
of its population.”
Addiction to compulsive gambling began to rise and it
was generally recognized that increased gambling leads to an increase in crime
(by people who are trying to relieve their debt, as well as by organized crime
trying to get into the profits.) Chapter
3 in the book raised the question: "Who Plays and Who Pays?" The more affluent people spend more money on
gambling. The poorer people spend
less, but "quite a bit more as a percentage of their incomes.” By the mid-90's, the "worm" was beginning
to turn. Cities and states were realizing
that the burdens of various kinds exceeded the benefits of the gambling business.
It is quite obvious that there is still sufficient demand
for (and captivity to) this form of "entertainment". It will continue into the indefinite future,
but perhaps not with the previous, universal enthusiasm.
For centuries it has been believed that the way to overcome
"gold and mammon" is moral exhortation, persuasion, commitment.
It is more productive to regard our super materialism as captivity
rather than corruption or ethical evil. In
this culture, as in most, money is the established mechanism or canalization
for satisfying a cluster of organic and "activity" drives.
This has been reinforced in people for generations. Turning attention away from moralizing, we
may raise questions such as how, why and when these perceptions will be changed--under
what circumstances will people become more emancipated? The theory implies testable answers; to the
extent the answers are verified, the theory is confirmed as a reliable guide,
or modified with confidence for improvement.
The process described above has operated in several
ways: (1) A person may fulfill the
ego or self, gain status and satisfy bodily needs by accumulating wealth. This may take the form of "conspicuous
consumption" or conspicuous accumulation. (2) An individual may have
grown up in a time of material deprivation.
In this case a sense of insecurity is felt thereafter, which impels
one to be abnormally concerned with money... which in turn relates to Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs and the condition in which organic and other basic drives
must be met before "higher" individual capacities and cognitive
processes are free to grow and find expression.
We may digress briefly to relate the foregoing to the
work of Ronald Inglehart who conducted surveys in several nations of Western
Europe, asking people to choose their highest values from a prepared list. Half the items on the list related to material
and security values, the other to non-material values such as freedom and
beauty. It was found that the people
who grew up during the depression showed a strong tendency to choose the material
items and younger persons the non-material. Inglehart explained this by referring to Maslow’s need hierarchy.
These results seem to conflict with some from Gallup which showed that
as people grow older they tend to become more conservative.
A reconciliation of these positions is possible in this way: dereistic reactions occur in the older people
when security needs come into conflict with the cognitive. Since the younger persons of today have probably
not had any shortage of material needs, the dereistic reaction is not called
forth; however should the young be compelled to face more stringent conditions,
theory predicts that their reactions would change. It also anticipates their reaction will tend to change as they grow
older and become more associated with the American success ethic and more
current financial matters.
The classical economists might recognize a third kind
of captivity, by maintaining that human wants are endless, and since money
is the means of satisfying these wants, the desire for money is endless. This assumption originated with the economic
theory that grew up during the early industrial revolution when people in
Western Europe were beginning to appreciate the potential cornucopia of industry
and technology. Since this seemed
endless, their expectations grew to match it, or at least the economists assumed
this result. Economic "wants"
are endless to the extent one perceives endless increase in satisfaction as
a possible goal. Americans have been
nurtured in this outlook.
We have noted Yankelovich's challenge of this belief
and value system. During the 90s,
American affluence and its expectations have come under erosion by a number
of forces: foreign technological competition,
exporting plants and jobs to cheap labor countries, declining natural resources,
polarization of wealth and others. Even among the successful there is discontent. Samuelson's book tried to explain this seemingly
strange phenomenon (however the author did not adequately address the concerns
of the lower income levels). Here
the subject of education enters the question of how basic values (including
the monetary) become established. People
are very sensitive about what is taught in school, and they want to be sure
their offspring are pointed in the "right" direction. What is it?
Gallup asked Americans for their rating of the goals of education. Here is what they said education should do,
in order of importance:
1. Help get a better job 47%
2. Help get along with others 43%
3. Help make more money 38%
4. Attain self- satisfaction 21%
5. Stimulate minds 11%
What constitutes a “better" job? There are several ingredients, but when we
listen to people who succeeded in getting one describe it, remuneration is
practically always mentioned, and very promptly, so a large part of Response
No.1 coincides with Response No.3--make more money. "Getting along with others" could denote anything from
the subtleties of Transactional Analysis to hail-fellow-well-met. If we ask for what purpose "getting ahead"
there will be some financial overtones. “Attaining self-satisfaction" is another ambiguous concept,
equally useful to Ayn Rand or Mohandas Gandhi.
Most significantly, "Stimulate Minds" ranks dead last among
the options at 11%.
Mental stimulation is also a little vague, and it would
be interesting to see the public's rating of "Help to think for oneself.”
Probably it wouldn't do much better, although perhaps slightly higher
because it sounds a little less subversive than stimulate minds.
Apparently most Americans think mental stimulation doesn't help much,
and may even be a handicap, especially if it interferes with the high-ranking
goals, as some suspect it does. We should recall that Ronald Reagan condemned
California for stimulating student minds.
It is only through stimulated and functioning minds that we can reach
a sound concept of what a better job is, how to associate constructively with
others, attain genuine and mutual satisfaction of the self or even a realistic
understanding of the limits of "more money"
A general rule governing the intensity of the craving
for money and goods is: What prospect does the future hold out for attaining
it? If the individual perceives that
poverty is and always has been the lot of people in a poor country with little
or no chance of avoidance (even assuming he is aware that things are different
elsewhere) then he will adapt his aspirations accordingly. He will not manifest the well known "rising
expectations". This interpretation
is consistent with some surprising results of a survey in India by Gunnar
Myrdal. Study of slum dwellers in
Old Delhi (with incomes of about four dollars per month) revealed that 94%
of them found their position "secure" and 91% were satisfied with
their present employment. The only
way this result is comprehensible to us is to assume that these people accepted
their way of life and saw no possibility of changing it. They did not perceive themselves as poor and
perhaps had no knowledge of a different standard. Probably they canalized drives into other forms, which we do not
recognize or appreciate, for example the Hindu religion with its reincarnation,
nirvana and self- abnegation. (Touched
upon in Chap. 10)
Nevertheless change does occur, and is occurring in
many UDCs where more people are raising their sights and lowering their thresholds
of tolerance, however slowly. The
relentless growth of the technology of transportation and communication guarantees
this, although it does not move as fast as some fear and others hope.
It takes a different form, and like many other things turned technological,
becomes more potent.
As the economy matures and works out its assumptions
it is increasingly possible to manipulate the system so that money is made,
but no necessary goods or services result.
Money invested returns much more money.
While capital is necessary, the social benefit is primarily in the
product and service, and those who provide them.
Making money from money, while hardly a sinful form of reproduction,
as first regarded, is nevertheless a kind of partial parasitism.
The most captivating and dangerous aspect of money is
the power it confers on some person or agency to shape our minds, whether
this occurs unconsciously or deliberately. Some illustrations were examined,
setting aside normative platitudes, like money is the source of evil, or to
be ignored in comparison to social and spiritual values.
Money exercises its influence on our thinking and way of life because
it symbolizes and makes possible many drive- fulfillments, and conversely
can inflict deprivations and frustrations.
Money can warp the mind dereistically and modify human
values. Erich Fromm recognized our
captivity to the demands of profit and market values as a source of alienation
in our society: “(A person’s) sense of value depends on his success; on whether
he can sell himself favorably, whether he can make more of himself than he
started out with, whether he is a success.
His body, his mind and his soul are his capital, and his task in life
is to invest it favorably, to make a profit of himself. If the individual
fails in a profitable investment of himself, he feels that he is a failure;
if he succeeds, he is a success. Clearly
his sense of his own value always depends on factors extraneous to himself,
on the fickle judgment of the market, which decides about his value as it
decides about the value of commodities.”
This pressure is greater in some human endeavors than
in others. The majority are not Arthur
Miller type salesmen, but it is safe to say that everyone is touched, more
or less forcibly by monetary influence, as long as they live in the American
culture, and many others like it.
Material success is alleged under capitalism to be the
reward of real ability on the part of competing individuals—without a monetary
“head start” on the part of the privileged. To the extent that some of these competitors are endowed, at the
outset with riches and the power this confers, to that degree, the rules of
the game have been aborted. Edsall
pointed out that the only tax in the U.S. that is applied directly to wealth
is the inheritance tax. The l98l legislation
called for raising the inheritance tax exemption from l75,000 dollars to 600,000,
an advantage applying only to the top 0.3% of the population. (A more recent
proposal has been to eliminate it) The
wealthy rationalize this by arguing that inheritance taxes interfere with
their freedom to acquire and pass on the results of their labors--or that
they could have gotten to the top, even starting with the "handicap"
of the extra money. A man like Carnegie
is exceptional in his belief that it was disgraceful to die wealthy. His sincerity was proven by his action in leaving
his offspring very little and public causes a great deal.
The important question about money is not so much the
amount obtained, but what is done with it.
If a person makes a million (or a billion) and spends it on education,
fighting disease or poverty or a new productive enterprise, it cannot properly
be said that he is dominated by money. If
he uses new enterprise and money to expand his net worth like a balloon, we
may say he is a prisoner. When this
subject, the dangers of money is discussed, a persistent question will arise:
How is it possible to determine what is too much? No one will admit to being in that position.
There are a number of simple tests to be applied: The ability to say
No, at some point, that no more personal gain will be sought; that the use
of what one has will be in socially beneficial ways--but not in greater affluence;
The ability to entertain beliefs and ideas which are at odds with more profit-making
and materialistic pursuits. These
and others can be operational tests of meaning, and can offer some resistance
to rationalizations.
The real issue becomes: Why do people succumb to these
attitudes and what can or will be done to change them? A brief and necessarily over simplified answer
to the first part is that cultural conditioning has reinforced these into
us over many decades. In this milieu,
money is its own reward for playing the game; the system has a built-in feedback.
However no system or no custom is exempt from change and some observers,
as Yankelovich has recognized, believe it is already changing.
It has been suggested here that the future of endless monetarism will
result in more frustration and less success.
Under what circumstances can we expect to become more
emancipated from bondage to an exaggerated materialism and monetarism? Living in affluence and a surplus of goods,
most Americans have never objected to how much excess the wealthy may accumulate
so long as they themselves are able to get by satisfactorily. Also the percentage of Americans who qualify
for affluence is the highest in history.
In addition the (Poorer) public seems to get a certain vicarious satisfaction
from the lavish living of the billionaires. As our surplus of resources dwindles and our
affluence shrinks, as the pressure on employment and security becomes more
acute, this attitude will change. People will decide they can ill afford such
wasteful and conspicuous consumption/ accumulation.
The public will begin to differentiate between opulence,
rentier living and paper entrepreneurialism on the one hand and constructive
investment and enterprise on the other. There is less polarization in other western nations than in the
U. S. This polarization can increase their effectiveness in operation. Changes include higher taxes on capital not
invested early and constructively; a progressive income tax; the requirement
of making both corporate and managerial transactions more accessible, to open
the books instead of keeping them closed--hiding operations which will not
stand the light of day.
The wealthy can now flee to other countries with success, but as long as their business is in the U.S., they can be subjected to some limiting requirements, thereby converting their patriotism from rhetoric to reality. Some international limitations can be expected to evolve. Economics in order to be fruitful in the future will have to be treated as part of ecology. We will stop thinking ab