Tonight I had the chance to listen to the inaugural speech of Québec's new premier, Pauline Marois. I heard it while I was in transit to Ottawa from Montréal, and it got me reflecting on the realities of Québecois politics, and why I'm proud to be a new resident of the province.
Marois, the province's first female leader, was elected in September. The party won only four more seats than the incumbent Liberals, ending nearly a decade of Jean Charest's continuous rule. Numerous scandals of 2012, notably the Charbonneau Commission investigating corruption, and the Printemps d'Erable student strikes, contributed to the waning popularity of the conservative and federalist Parti Liberal du Québec (PLQ).
The Parti Québecois (PQ) was widely expected to win the election, and they managed to win a minority mandate. Parliament first sat yesterday, and the inaugural speech (the equivalent of the throne speech) was this afternoon. In her hour-long address, she articulated the four planks upon which the government will stand, which will be explained below.
First, Marois committed her government to move toward eliminating corruption. She specified that corruption "not a Québec phenomenon", and that there needs to be a greater emphasis on getting money out of politics, evoking Réné Levesque as an inspiration. Montreal is currently at the centre of a massive corruption scandal, but it's important that the reach of money into politics is a significant problem in many other jurisdictions such as Ontario (with e-health and Ornge) and the United States (with its Super PACs).
Second, the PQ will focus on building the economy. Where the previous government introduced neoliberal reform in order to produce growth, the PQ is investing in making sure that economic activity is incremental, environmentally sustainable, and that it benefits the province as a whole. Potential reforms to taxes and financial regulations were hinted at, but the major thrust is investing in local economies rather than pursuing large international trade deals.
Third, the government wants to foster a better sense of solidarity. This is to be achieved in numerous ways, most notably through the expansion and defense of Québec's large social welfare state. Marois specifically discussed expanding access to the existing universal daycare programme, bettering school environments, offering in-home care, and hiring more physicians. These measures are designed to make sure that all generations of Québecers are being taken care of, and that everyone can participate in society. This was paired with a very strong rhetoric on the liberation of women, achieved by allowing the state to further encroach into the domestic sphere for care of children and the elderly.
Fourth, the PQ will continue to protect Québec's language identity. Obviously this is by far the most controversial item, but it is a solid principle nonetheless. Talk of separation was left out in favour of discussing the importance of fostering a strong Québec based around the French language as the tie that binds.
All told, there are some significant problems with Marois' speech. For one, it is entirely unclear how she intends to actually finance these proposed changes. The expansion of the social welfare state is indeed an excellent idea, but on a practical level, there was no indication from the premier about changes to income taxes, for example. Moreover, Marois was certainly playing politics regarding the anti-corruption plank. This was the policy position taken by the Coalition Avenir Québec, and now that there is a commission pointing out just how involved senior politicians in the province were, Marois is capitalising on the disdain coming from ordinary residents.
But with that in mind, Québec's political direction is one that I feel pretty proud of and that I can certainly support. Marois hit on some very important issues from my perspective, namely: resisting cultural hegemony through protection of the French language, propping up the social welfare state, emphasising the idea that all Québecers are important to the future of the province, and supporting green initiatives in order to protect the natural beauty of Québec.
Is This Progress? This Is Progress.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Monday, 15 October 2012
Québec Summit on Co-operatives
Last week I spent four days at a once-in-a-lifetime conference, the 2012 Québec Summit on Co-operatives. The meeting attracted nearly three thousand attendees from over ninety countries. The Québec Summit was the first meeting of its kind, a gathering of the world's leading co-operatives, fleshed out with academics, activists, members of NGOs, and co-op federations and associations.
The meeting was truly a marvel. It showcased the unity of a somewhat disparate movement, demonstrating that it was very possible for co-ops to compete with business enterprises in the global economy. The atmosphere was charged, fueled by several high profile guests such as Québec Premier Pauline Marois, performer Gregory Charles, and alter-globalist Riccardo Petrella. While the experience was moving because of its sheer size, there are several aspects that jump out at me as concerns, which is the subject of this post.
The most auspicious in question was the role of Desjardins. Desjardins is a financial co-operative, a federation of caisses populaires, in Québec which has expanded outside that market. It is the largest co-operatively owned financial institution in North America, and it is also the largest financial institution in Québec, with 45 000 employees and roughly 80 per cent of Québec residents holding at least one account. Desjardins is an excellent enterprise with a serious focus on providing services that people need. It consistently ranks highly in terms of social responsibility projects, and it plays a key role in supporting the growth of the co-op sector. Of course the size of Desjardins speaks to the capability of co-operatively run businesses to become players in free market economies, but the issue is that Desjardins is virtually unchallenged in terms of its size and scope.
For this being one of two official ICA events in the International Year of the Co-operative, there was a sense that Desjardins itself had a disproportionately large stamp on it- perhaps explained by the fact that it was responsible for ensuring the success of the event, financially, logistically and in every other way. Still, it would have helped enormously to have the Summit at least somewhat more participatory. Desjardins had 75 full-time staff organising the conference, with tasks varying from the logistical such as finding sponsors and designing logos to the substantive such as picking speakers. It is also a significant concern that the CEO suggested that Québec hold a second summit of this kind, organised and supervised by Desjardins again - however, I have since heard that she has backed down on this claim. While I am certainly glad that Desjardins was able to pool resources in order to put this event on, I am troubled by large institutions leading a movement without keeping close to democratic principles or the realities on the ground. Desjardins absolutely should continue to support summits and congresses, but it would be far more preferable that it come to to table as an equal player with other members of the co-op world.
This co-optation was very much reinforced by the use of several studies that were commissioned to showcase co-ops. Firms such as McKinsey and IPSOS were contracted to legitimise research that would be palatable to people outside the world of co-operatives. These organisations polled various groups in order to determine where the co-op sector was successful and where it was not. The information, in a lot of regards, was very helpful, notably that many people just don't know what a co-operative is, and that the best way to remedy this would be to state this more clearly. However, the sleek packaging of these reports was designed not just to present some useful data, but the medium is the message. Data from a respected, international, mainstream, and "objective" firm is designed to help co-operatives fit better into the existing economic status quo, rather than work to change it by being a recognisable alternative. Further, a very significant focus was placed on profit. This discourse of profit was not situated in terms of keeping the co-op operational, nor was it tempered by sustainability either socially or economically. The idea was the pursuit of profit, much in the same sense that it is routinely discussed by large transnationals.
Another issue was the lack of diversity amongst panelists. Predominantly, this relates to youth, women, and non-Westerners. There was a serious rhetoric that these groups flourish in co-operatives and that they are indeed not only the future, but the present of the movement. While the keynote speakers were very diverse, the plenary discussions (which were essentially roundtables) were surprisingly homogenous. Very few plenaries featured speakers who were female or from outside Europe and North America. What is perhaps more shocking, however, is that youth were virtually excluded from speaking.
One last element that I'd like to mention is that there was an incredible lack of emphasis on the role of the state. Whether from the leaders of large co-ops, from researchers, or from other organisations, there seemed to be few that argued that it was the prerogative and responsibility of the state to invest in the strengthening of the co-operative sector so that it can become self-sufficient. There was even a roundtable discussion about capitalisation, but this was effectively balanced out by another plenary that suggested that government involvement (from a regulatory perspective) tends to create trouble. What was interesting was that intervention was shaped as state funding paired with crippling regulation, without really having a positive discussion of them together and how that might manifest itself.
I don't intend to paint a monolithic picture of the Québec Summit as negative. While these are elements that I, and many of my colleagues, found distressing or uncomfortable, there were certainly some incredible highlights. There were two associated events, the Imagine Conference, presented by St. Marys University, and a conference on Worker Co-operatives presented by Le Reseau. These events were great, but the registration was separate from the main conference, and thus not everyone benefited from them (the Imagine Conference, for example, had about 600 participants instead of the 2800 at the Summit).
Another important element was that the conference billed co-ops as high profile, essentially attracting public interest, attention from activists, and serious academic analysis. The event was actually well covered in the media, in particular the French-language press in Canada. This function was also supported by the Imagine Conference, which presented a radical perspective about economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Among other things, the Dean of the St. Mary's Business School, Dr. Patricia Bradshaw stated that St. Mary's University was committed to continue to disseminate the research findings. She stated, "We want to collaborate with other academic departments. We seek to form a network of university partners committed to co-op development. We need to develop programs whereby students can run co-ops."
Fortunately, one of the most impressive parts of the summit was the keynote address, made by Riccardo Petrella, an Italian co-operator, economist, and alter-globalist. His address challenged the notion of development, urging the co-op sector to focus on meeting social needs, remaining close to communities, to nature, and to values of democracy.
In all, the conference was an excellent chance to meet fellow co-operators, and as someone who is brand new to the sector, it was a remarkable chance to see just how diverse the movement is. Speaking to colleagues and to new friends allowed me the chance to see what some of the major debates and tensions are within the movement.
The meeting was truly a marvel. It showcased the unity of a somewhat disparate movement, demonstrating that it was very possible for co-ops to compete with business enterprises in the global economy. The atmosphere was charged, fueled by several high profile guests such as Québec Premier Pauline Marois, performer Gregory Charles, and alter-globalist Riccardo Petrella. While the experience was moving because of its sheer size, there are several aspects that jump out at me as concerns, which is the subject of this post.
The most auspicious in question was the role of Desjardins. Desjardins is a financial co-operative, a federation of caisses populaires, in Québec which has expanded outside that market. It is the largest co-operatively owned financial institution in North America, and it is also the largest financial institution in Québec, with 45 000 employees and roughly 80 per cent of Québec residents holding at least one account. Desjardins is an excellent enterprise with a serious focus on providing services that people need. It consistently ranks highly in terms of social responsibility projects, and it plays a key role in supporting the growth of the co-op sector. Of course the size of Desjardins speaks to the capability of co-operatively run businesses to become players in free market economies, but the issue is that Desjardins is virtually unchallenged in terms of its size and scope.
For this being one of two official ICA events in the International Year of the Co-operative, there was a sense that Desjardins itself had a disproportionately large stamp on it- perhaps explained by the fact that it was responsible for ensuring the success of the event, financially, logistically and in every other way. Still, it would have helped enormously to have the Summit at least somewhat more participatory. Desjardins had 75 full-time staff organising the conference, with tasks varying from the logistical such as finding sponsors and designing logos to the substantive such as picking speakers. It is also a significant concern that the CEO suggested that Québec hold a second summit of this kind, organised and supervised by Desjardins again - however, I have since heard that she has backed down on this claim. While I am certainly glad that Desjardins was able to pool resources in order to put this event on, I am troubled by large institutions leading a movement without keeping close to democratic principles or the realities on the ground. Desjardins absolutely should continue to support summits and congresses, but it would be far more preferable that it come to to table as an equal player with other members of the co-op world.
This co-optation was very much reinforced by the use of several studies that were commissioned to showcase co-ops. Firms such as McKinsey and IPSOS were contracted to legitimise research that would be palatable to people outside the world of co-operatives. These organisations polled various groups in order to determine where the co-op sector was successful and where it was not. The information, in a lot of regards, was very helpful, notably that many people just don't know what a co-operative is, and that the best way to remedy this would be to state this more clearly. However, the sleek packaging of these reports was designed not just to present some useful data, but the medium is the message. Data from a respected, international, mainstream, and "objective" firm is designed to help co-operatives fit better into the existing economic status quo, rather than work to change it by being a recognisable alternative. Further, a very significant focus was placed on profit. This discourse of profit was not situated in terms of keeping the co-op operational, nor was it tempered by sustainability either socially or economically. The idea was the pursuit of profit, much in the same sense that it is routinely discussed by large transnationals.
Another issue was the lack of diversity amongst panelists. Predominantly, this relates to youth, women, and non-Westerners. There was a serious rhetoric that these groups flourish in co-operatives and that they are indeed not only the future, but the present of the movement. While the keynote speakers were very diverse, the plenary discussions (which were essentially roundtables) were surprisingly homogenous. Very few plenaries featured speakers who were female or from outside Europe and North America. What is perhaps more shocking, however, is that youth were virtually excluded from speaking.
One last element that I'd like to mention is that there was an incredible lack of emphasis on the role of the state. Whether from the leaders of large co-ops, from researchers, or from other organisations, there seemed to be few that argued that it was the prerogative and responsibility of the state to invest in the strengthening of the co-operative sector so that it can become self-sufficient. There was even a roundtable discussion about capitalisation, but this was effectively balanced out by another plenary that suggested that government involvement (from a regulatory perspective) tends to create trouble. What was interesting was that intervention was shaped as state funding paired with crippling regulation, without really having a positive discussion of them together and how that might manifest itself.
I don't intend to paint a monolithic picture of the Québec Summit as negative. While these are elements that I, and many of my colleagues, found distressing or uncomfortable, there were certainly some incredible highlights. There were two associated events, the Imagine Conference, presented by St. Marys University, and a conference on Worker Co-operatives presented by Le Reseau. These events were great, but the registration was separate from the main conference, and thus not everyone benefited from them (the Imagine Conference, for example, had about 600 participants instead of the 2800 at the Summit).
Another important element was that the conference billed co-ops as high profile, essentially attracting public interest, attention from activists, and serious academic analysis. The event was actually well covered in the media, in particular the French-language press in Canada. This function was also supported by the Imagine Conference, which presented a radical perspective about economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Among other things, the Dean of the St. Mary's Business School, Dr. Patricia Bradshaw stated that St. Mary's University was committed to continue to disseminate the research findings. She stated, "We want to collaborate with other academic departments. We seek to form a network of university partners committed to co-op development. We need to develop programs whereby students can run co-ops."
Fortunately, one of the most impressive parts of the summit was the keynote address, made by Riccardo Petrella, an Italian co-operator, economist, and alter-globalist. His address challenged the notion of development, urging the co-op sector to focus on meeting social needs, remaining close to communities, to nature, and to values of democracy.
In all, the conference was an excellent chance to meet fellow co-operators, and as someone who is brand new to the sector, it was a remarkable chance to see just how diverse the movement is. Speaking to colleagues and to new friends allowed me the chance to see what some of the major debates and tensions are within the movement.
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Modern Islamophobia
Everyone who knows me knows that one of the causes I am most
passionate about is fighting Islamophobia. I've blogged about this
before, most notably with a post I wrote called "Draw Muhammed Day".
Islamophobia is a trend that ebbs and flows in the Western world. Since
the terrorist attacks of 9/11 there has been a very visceral attitude
of secular and religious Westerners to Islam, one that can be turned on
and off with virtually the flick of a switch.
The most recent episode has been one of such frenzies of media attention. A low-budget production called "The Innocence of Muslims" was launched onto youtube, seen countless times by countless people around the globe. To not have heard about this controversy, you'd have to have been far removed from any media or anyone with access to media. My post this time around has to do, predominantly, with the media coverage of this event and, secondarily, with the general attitudes of the West toward Islam.
As I mentioned a second ago, 9/11 played a mammoth role in politicising Muslims as others. There has been a long history in the West of vilifying Islamic peoples and their cultures, but the climate after 9/11 brought a new perspective, with Islam threatening not Christianity, but democracy, capitalism, individualism, freedom of expression, secularism, pluralism, and other pillars of a modern Western society.
The film itself is something that I won't really comment on much. I think it's an atrociously poorly produced piece, but it's full of hate, stereotypes, and ignorance. The film, according to its producers, is designed to point out the hypocrisy of Islam and its prophet, Muhammed. The film has been viewed by hundreds of millions of people in countries all across the world. The response to it has been mixed, with many promoting the right to freedom of speech and others indicating that this is blatant hate speech. The debate is a challenging one, as striking a balance of censorship and expressive license is a major issue in most modern democratic states.
The film aside, the majority of the media coverage has centred around the rather noteworthy reactions in the Islamic world. Throughout the Middle East there have been significant protests since the middle of September. Groups of Muslims, largely urban youths, have gathered to express their anti-American sentiments, offended at the defamation of their god. These protests, which are an authentic expression of their religious fervour, have been augmented by a growing resentment in the Middle East toward American politics and culture. While the vast majority of these protests were peaceful, some protestors turned to violence, notably in Libya, where the US ambassador was murdered.
These events prompted the standard arguments. Islam is violent, or Muslims are uncivilised, or any other Islamophobic drivel. These presumptions and stereotypes are not at all new. These constructs are part of over a millennium of contact between Christianity and Islam, often marred with violence. The Islamic world is presented as brutal and savage while the Christian world is characterised as peaceful and ordered. There is a false sense of superiority on the part of Westerners that our societies are more advanced than those in the Middle East. Overwhelmingly, proponents of such a worldview are totally failing to understand Islam and are not deconstructing their privilege as Westerners.
The first part of this is not understanding Islam. Few realise that Islam is very close in content to Christianity. Because of the unfortunate history of conflict between the Christian West and the Middle East, Muslims have overwhelmingly been constructed as untrustworthy, immoral, unintelligent, foul, and aggressive. These characterisations were based on selected interactions with Muslims and ignore the significant contributions that Muslims have made to art, math, philosophy, and science.
The second element is the blatant hypocrisy. Muslims are thought to be intolerant and violent, which of course is contrasted with Western pluralism and agreeability. This is absolutely incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, it suggests that there are not high rates of intolerance and violence in Western societies. This is clearly untrue, given the amount of discrimination and aggressive crime in places such as the United States. Moreover, in the historical context it is quite evident that Christians have been terribly aggressive, such as the sectarian violence of the Thirty Years War, the persistent persecution during the Reconquista, the brutal colonisation of Africa, and the Holocaust. Secondly, it holds Muslims to the same standards as the West, where different social, economic, and political factors have produced a vastly dissimilar realities. It's forgotten all too quickly that not only have Christians committed atrocious crimes against humanity all through the twentieth century, they continue to do so now.
I find this troubling because Westerners think that Islamic societies are backwards compared to North America or Europe. The reaction of Westerners to the protests and the murders has been predictable: Muslims are characterised as reactionary and blinded by their religious attitudes. This is quite clear in examining news media, but it's also a trend on the internet. The two best examples of this are an article published by the Onion, and a meme comparing Islam to atheism. Both of these are offensive because they treat Muslims as immature fanatics, incapable of operating in a pluralistic world like "everyone else".
It is particularly frustrating because Westerners are not deconstructing why Muslims are angry. Few Americans, for instance, realise that residents of the Middle East don't understand American-style individualism. The protests have been vociferously anti-American, and this is primarily because Muslims living in rather collectivist undemocratic societies presume that the video was produced or disseminated in part by the United States government. And it seems to make perfect sense from the perspective of Muslims that Washington might be participating in this given the terrible suffering that Muslim populations have experienced as a direct result of American foreign policy, particularly since the end of the Cold War.
There is much more to say about this topic, but I'll leave you with a final comment. The film and its reaction have highlighted what I believe is the new Islamophobia. It's not about attacking people's religion directly, it's about attacking all the items affiliated with it (terrorism, oppression of women's rights, lack of religious freedom, dictatorships, immigration) in order to discredit the religion and its culture. I'm very worried for the future of relations between the West and Islam given the incredible tension that is produced between government and between cultures.
The most recent episode has been one of such frenzies of media attention. A low-budget production called "The Innocence of Muslims" was launched onto youtube, seen countless times by countless people around the globe. To not have heard about this controversy, you'd have to have been far removed from any media or anyone with access to media. My post this time around has to do, predominantly, with the media coverage of this event and, secondarily, with the general attitudes of the West toward Islam.
As I mentioned a second ago, 9/11 played a mammoth role in politicising Muslims as others. There has been a long history in the West of vilifying Islamic peoples and their cultures, but the climate after 9/11 brought a new perspective, with Islam threatening not Christianity, but democracy, capitalism, individualism, freedom of expression, secularism, pluralism, and other pillars of a modern Western society.
The film itself is something that I won't really comment on much. I think it's an atrociously poorly produced piece, but it's full of hate, stereotypes, and ignorance. The film, according to its producers, is designed to point out the hypocrisy of Islam and its prophet, Muhammed. The film has been viewed by hundreds of millions of people in countries all across the world. The response to it has been mixed, with many promoting the right to freedom of speech and others indicating that this is blatant hate speech. The debate is a challenging one, as striking a balance of censorship and expressive license is a major issue in most modern democratic states.
The film aside, the majority of the media coverage has centred around the rather noteworthy reactions in the Islamic world. Throughout the Middle East there have been significant protests since the middle of September. Groups of Muslims, largely urban youths, have gathered to express their anti-American sentiments, offended at the defamation of their god. These protests, which are an authentic expression of their religious fervour, have been augmented by a growing resentment in the Middle East toward American politics and culture. While the vast majority of these protests were peaceful, some protestors turned to violence, notably in Libya, where the US ambassador was murdered.
These events prompted the standard arguments. Islam is violent, or Muslims are uncivilised, or any other Islamophobic drivel. These presumptions and stereotypes are not at all new. These constructs are part of over a millennium of contact between Christianity and Islam, often marred with violence. The Islamic world is presented as brutal and savage while the Christian world is characterised as peaceful and ordered. There is a false sense of superiority on the part of Westerners that our societies are more advanced than those in the Middle East. Overwhelmingly, proponents of such a worldview are totally failing to understand Islam and are not deconstructing their privilege as Westerners.
The first part of this is not understanding Islam. Few realise that Islam is very close in content to Christianity. Because of the unfortunate history of conflict between the Christian West and the Middle East, Muslims have overwhelmingly been constructed as untrustworthy, immoral, unintelligent, foul, and aggressive. These characterisations were based on selected interactions with Muslims and ignore the significant contributions that Muslims have made to art, math, philosophy, and science.
The second element is the blatant hypocrisy. Muslims are thought to be intolerant and violent, which of course is contrasted with Western pluralism and agreeability. This is absolutely incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, it suggests that there are not high rates of intolerance and violence in Western societies. This is clearly untrue, given the amount of discrimination and aggressive crime in places such as the United States. Moreover, in the historical context it is quite evident that Christians have been terribly aggressive, such as the sectarian violence of the Thirty Years War, the persistent persecution during the Reconquista, the brutal colonisation of Africa, and the Holocaust. Secondly, it holds Muslims to the same standards as the West, where different social, economic, and political factors have produced a vastly dissimilar realities. It's forgotten all too quickly that not only have Christians committed atrocious crimes against humanity all through the twentieth century, they continue to do so now.
I find this troubling because Westerners think that Islamic societies are backwards compared to North America or Europe. The reaction of Westerners to the protests and the murders has been predictable: Muslims are characterised as reactionary and blinded by their religious attitudes. This is quite clear in examining news media, but it's also a trend on the internet. The two best examples of this are an article published by the Onion, and a meme comparing Islam to atheism. Both of these are offensive because they treat Muslims as immature fanatics, incapable of operating in a pluralistic world like "everyone else".
It is particularly frustrating because Westerners are not deconstructing why Muslims are angry. Few Americans, for instance, realise that residents of the Middle East don't understand American-style individualism. The protests have been vociferously anti-American, and this is primarily because Muslims living in rather collectivist undemocratic societies presume that the video was produced or disseminated in part by the United States government. And it seems to make perfect sense from the perspective of Muslims that Washington might be participating in this given the terrible suffering that Muslim populations have experienced as a direct result of American foreign policy, particularly since the end of the Cold War.
There is much more to say about this topic, but I'll leave you with a final comment. The film and its reaction have highlighted what I believe is the new Islamophobia. It's not about attacking people's religion directly, it's about attacking all the items affiliated with it (terrorism, oppression of women's rights, lack of religious freedom, dictatorships, immigration) in order to discredit the religion and its culture. I'm very worried for the future of relations between the West and Islam given the incredible tension that is produced between government and between cultures.
Monday, 24 September 2012
The Mistress
I recently watched a new television show called "The Mistress". Starring Sarah Symonds, a
former mistress, the programme showcases women who are looking to get
out of the lifestyle of being in a relationship with a married man.
The show is terrible on numerous levels, but the most outrageous implication of the show is that affairs are the fault of women. It is the wife or the mistress, but oddly never men (who evidently can't control themselves), who provide an environment for men to cheat. Men, naturally, are only acting on their evolutionary imperatives.
As such, Symonds has hosted various seminars, written articles, appeared on talk shows, telling women to "affair-proof" their relationships. This idea is at the heart of what "The Mistress" is effectively about. Men are apparently naturally promiscuous and the only way to keep a man is to constantly work on making sure that his every need is met. Not only does this have serious practical ramifications, it also means that women have to saddle yet another responsibility. Women are already often forced to take on work outside the home while simultaneously taking care of the household, the so-called double burden. I would argue that Symonds, along with numerous other personalities like Oprah Winfrey and Tammy Nelson, is advancing a triple burden. Women are responsible for taking care of the home, making money, and preventing their partners from straying from the relationship.
It is common knowledge that both men and women are attracted to people they meet on a daily basis. These attractions are not inherently scary, nor are they dangerous to a relationship. Our society, however, doesn't give individuals the tools to really examine attraction outside of relationships and move forward with it. Effectively, we are taught that these feelings will destabilise a relationship and that it is best to keep them secret. In that sense, the discourse that comes from so-called relationship experts like Symonds is that we should be valuing monogamy over honesty.
Beyond this, there are also some rather odd suggestions that Symonds makes on the show. The first is the wedding dress. She has the mistress don a white dress and look at herself in the mirror in order to instill a sense that she should find a man who can give her a stable, monogamous, marriage. Marriage is supposed to embody all the cultural attitudes about love that are instilled in us from childhood. Think Disney, romantic comedies, and popular loves songs.
What's perhaps even more troubling is Symonds suggestion that women put themselves in certain positions to meet men. Here's a secret for any woman looking to land a man, evidently all you have to do is go to a place where men are doing things they enjoy. Golfing is a perfect example of such a place, and for more than the aforementioned reason. Women should be putting themselves in positions where they are inferior to men. Symonds tells these women that they should find men to share interests with by having them take on submissive roles, like student for example. It is absolutely crazy to suggest meeting men through sharing men's activities, rather than something both men and women can enjoy together.
I was unimpressed with the show, but I feel that this sort of dim television is more than just harmless entertainment. It actively reinforces the attitudes that men and women have towards each other, that people have toward relationships, and that shape our concepts of morality.
The show is terrible on numerous levels, but the most outrageous implication of the show is that affairs are the fault of women. It is the wife or the mistress, but oddly never men (who evidently can't control themselves), who provide an environment for men to cheat. Men, naturally, are only acting on their evolutionary imperatives.
As such, Symonds has hosted various seminars, written articles, appeared on talk shows, telling women to "affair-proof" their relationships. This idea is at the heart of what "The Mistress" is effectively about. Men are apparently naturally promiscuous and the only way to keep a man is to constantly work on making sure that his every need is met. Not only does this have serious practical ramifications, it also means that women have to saddle yet another responsibility. Women are already often forced to take on work outside the home while simultaneously taking care of the household, the so-called double burden. I would argue that Symonds, along with numerous other personalities like Oprah Winfrey and Tammy Nelson, is advancing a triple burden. Women are responsible for taking care of the home, making money, and preventing their partners from straying from the relationship.
It is common knowledge that both men and women are attracted to people they meet on a daily basis. These attractions are not inherently scary, nor are they dangerous to a relationship. Our society, however, doesn't give individuals the tools to really examine attraction outside of relationships and move forward with it. Effectively, we are taught that these feelings will destabilise a relationship and that it is best to keep them secret. In that sense, the discourse that comes from so-called relationship experts like Symonds is that we should be valuing monogamy over honesty.
Beyond this, there are also some rather odd suggestions that Symonds makes on the show. The first is the wedding dress. She has the mistress don a white dress and look at herself in the mirror in order to instill a sense that she should find a man who can give her a stable, monogamous, marriage. Marriage is supposed to embody all the cultural attitudes about love that are instilled in us from childhood. Think Disney, romantic comedies, and popular loves songs.
What's perhaps even more troubling is Symonds suggestion that women put themselves in certain positions to meet men. Here's a secret for any woman looking to land a man, evidently all you have to do is go to a place where men are doing things they enjoy. Golfing is a perfect example of such a place, and for more than the aforementioned reason. Women should be putting themselves in positions where they are inferior to men. Symonds tells these women that they should find men to share interests with by having them take on submissive roles, like student for example. It is absolutely crazy to suggest meeting men through sharing men's activities, rather than something both men and women can enjoy together.
I was unimpressed with the show, but I feel that this sort of dim television is more than just harmless entertainment. It actively reinforces the attitudes that men and women have towards each other, that people have toward relationships, and that shape our concepts of morality.
Monday, 6 August 2012
Some Thoughts on Philanthropy
As many of you know, I recently rode in a charity ride around the Cabot Trail in Nova Scotia. The organisation I supported, Coast to Coast Against Cancer Foundation, raises money to provide support services for children living with and beyond cancer. During my brief adventure I spent many an hour contemplating the place of philanthropy in modern health care. Here are some of my thoughts.
Going into the ride I was sceptical. I've recently become increasingly more leery of philanthropy as I've gotten older. For the most part this has to do with the fact that philanthropy is largely becoming the stand-in for the social welfare system. The broader trend over the past decade in Canada has been that public subsidies for health care have decreased, despite legal protection in the Canada Health Act. Provinces, and more recently the Federal Government, have made significant cuts to public services, health care included. These cuts make services less affordable and ultimately ensure that the quality diminishes over time. The claims are then made that public systems are inefficient in order to justify more privatisation. The cycle continues such that the social welfare state is in a serious retreat in all of Canada. This is part of the neoliberal model, an ideology designed to free up markets even further.
The difference between subsidised public health care services and a private system is that private health care is for profit. In Canada there has been steady growth in private-for-profit operations which are fee-for-service, meaning that people are paying for health care out of pocket. This is significant because it shifts the burden from broad (taxpayers) to narrow (users). Moreover, the profit imperative means that society is paying more for healthcare when it is privatised than when it is nationalised. This is best evidenced by the fact that the United States spends significantly more money on health care than Canada - our public system is more efficient.
The importance of this background is that it sets a particular context: health care costs in Canada are rising. This, of course, is happening when the quality of service is consistently being called into question. What's worse, there is much talk about our aging population, the so-called apocalyptic demography. In this context of health care needing saving, philanthropy is largely becoming an answer. In Canada various organisations operate as charities: the MS Society of Canada has several bike rides, the Canadian Brest Cancer Society has Run for the Cure events, the Heart and Stroke Society has a lottery, and various Children's Hospitals have pledge drives. Large organisations that once relied on public funds are now expanding their staff in order to get access to more resources. Effectively, this means that these organisations are becoming more inefficient without public support as they now need to become larger and more bureaucratic.
The reason why this system works, however, is because it removes the burden presumably from everyone. People aren't forced to support health care; instead they have choices. They can choose to support or to opt out, and more than that, they can also pick exactly what causes they want to advance. The results are predictable - instead of money being allocated by government departments based on perceived need, people are choosing for themselves and the most flashy campaigns are the benefactors. By virtue of being more affluent, these organisations can also afford to invest in more and better fundraising. The cycle continues and it is marketing like any other private service.
The rationale here is important, and it brings me to the Coast to Coast Foundation. The organisation was formed about a decade ago and provides support services. Unlike the other charities I listed, Coast to Coast does not provide treatment and it does not finance research. Nonetheless, it fits under the umbrella of care because it helps to support children and their families. Coast to Coast doesn't actually provide services that were ever part of the public mandate. As such, what the organisation does is, effectively, auxiliary to the system. Coast to Coast is not undermining public health care, nor are they promoting privatisation by way of philanthropy.
Nonetheless, I made some observations. Most of the participants for the ride were from Ontario (myself included). I was riding in the Maritimes, so this is obviously a long way away. Part of the reason why many people rode was because they wanted the experience of biking the Cabot Trail, so tourism or having a personal challenge was an impetus for many participants - something that a taxpayer doesn't get when they support public systems. Almost all of these Ontarians, and in fact many of the Maritimers as well, were comparatively wealthy. I don't mean this to disparage: they are the type of wealthy that are successful in the private sector as senior managers and business owners. These people work hard and are looking for a meaningful way to give back to the communities around them. And it makes sense - those with wealth have extended networks of peers that they can draw donations from. I see that, for each participant, the ride is personally meaningful. There is a sense of connection from volunteering time and resources to share with those in need. This is amplified by the fact that what they are doing is entirely voluntary. Participating in a charity event allows those who are fortunate to feel that the position they hold in society is just: they are leveraging their privilege for the betterment of society. While I do agree that what they are doing is noble, I can't help but think of how much more effective it would be if people were simply levied more taxes.
Philanthropy is not going to disappear: it's a lucrative industry in Canada where many people make a good living. That said, it comes off the backs of a sustainable public health care network. What's ultimately important is that the notions of "crisis" in health care are largely overstated. More importantly, the problems with our system are not the result of some inherent disadvantage in being public but instead the direct result of privatisation. Crisis is manufactured by reforms that put profits before people, but there are very successful public relations campaigns out there dedicated to making us believe that public systems are "luxurious" or a "privilege". Health care is a right and Canadians need to organise around infrastructure that protects citizens from an outrageous financial burden.
Going into the ride I was sceptical. I've recently become increasingly more leery of philanthropy as I've gotten older. For the most part this has to do with the fact that philanthropy is largely becoming the stand-in for the social welfare system. The broader trend over the past decade in Canada has been that public subsidies for health care have decreased, despite legal protection in the Canada Health Act. Provinces, and more recently the Federal Government, have made significant cuts to public services, health care included. These cuts make services less affordable and ultimately ensure that the quality diminishes over time. The claims are then made that public systems are inefficient in order to justify more privatisation. The cycle continues such that the social welfare state is in a serious retreat in all of Canada. This is part of the neoliberal model, an ideology designed to free up markets even further.
The difference between subsidised public health care services and a private system is that private health care is for profit. In Canada there has been steady growth in private-for-profit operations which are fee-for-service, meaning that people are paying for health care out of pocket. This is significant because it shifts the burden from broad (taxpayers) to narrow (users). Moreover, the profit imperative means that society is paying more for healthcare when it is privatised than when it is nationalised. This is best evidenced by the fact that the United States spends significantly more money on health care than Canada - our public system is more efficient.
The importance of this background is that it sets a particular context: health care costs in Canada are rising. This, of course, is happening when the quality of service is consistently being called into question. What's worse, there is much talk about our aging population, the so-called apocalyptic demography. In this context of health care needing saving, philanthropy is largely becoming an answer. In Canada various organisations operate as charities: the MS Society of Canada has several bike rides, the Canadian Brest Cancer Society has Run for the Cure events, the Heart and Stroke Society has a lottery, and various Children's Hospitals have pledge drives. Large organisations that once relied on public funds are now expanding their staff in order to get access to more resources. Effectively, this means that these organisations are becoming more inefficient without public support as they now need to become larger and more bureaucratic.
The reason why this system works, however, is because it removes the burden presumably from everyone. People aren't forced to support health care; instead they have choices. They can choose to support or to opt out, and more than that, they can also pick exactly what causes they want to advance. The results are predictable - instead of money being allocated by government departments based on perceived need, people are choosing for themselves and the most flashy campaigns are the benefactors. By virtue of being more affluent, these organisations can also afford to invest in more and better fundraising. The cycle continues and it is marketing like any other private service.
The rationale here is important, and it brings me to the Coast to Coast Foundation. The organisation was formed about a decade ago and provides support services. Unlike the other charities I listed, Coast to Coast does not provide treatment and it does not finance research. Nonetheless, it fits under the umbrella of care because it helps to support children and their families. Coast to Coast doesn't actually provide services that were ever part of the public mandate. As such, what the organisation does is, effectively, auxiliary to the system. Coast to Coast is not undermining public health care, nor are they promoting privatisation by way of philanthropy.
Nonetheless, I made some observations. Most of the participants for the ride were from Ontario (myself included). I was riding in the Maritimes, so this is obviously a long way away. Part of the reason why many people rode was because they wanted the experience of biking the Cabot Trail, so tourism or having a personal challenge was an impetus for many participants - something that a taxpayer doesn't get when they support public systems. Almost all of these Ontarians, and in fact many of the Maritimers as well, were comparatively wealthy. I don't mean this to disparage: they are the type of wealthy that are successful in the private sector as senior managers and business owners. These people work hard and are looking for a meaningful way to give back to the communities around them. And it makes sense - those with wealth have extended networks of peers that they can draw donations from. I see that, for each participant, the ride is personally meaningful. There is a sense of connection from volunteering time and resources to share with those in need. This is amplified by the fact that what they are doing is entirely voluntary. Participating in a charity event allows those who are fortunate to feel that the position they hold in society is just: they are leveraging their privilege for the betterment of society. While I do agree that what they are doing is noble, I can't help but think of how much more effective it would be if people were simply levied more taxes.
Philanthropy is not going to disappear: it's a lucrative industry in Canada where many people make a good living. That said, it comes off the backs of a sustainable public health care network. What's ultimately important is that the notions of "crisis" in health care are largely overstated. More importantly, the problems with our system are not the result of some inherent disadvantage in being public but instead the direct result of privatisation. Crisis is manufactured by reforms that put profits before people, but there are very successful public relations campaigns out there dedicated to making us believe that public systems are "luxurious" or a "privilege". Health care is a right and Canadians need to organise around infrastructure that protects citizens from an outrageous financial burden.
Thursday, 2 August 2012
What's Wrong with the Internets?
George Bush caused quite the stir when he referred to cyberspace as "The Internets". Those who know me well know that I generally use this language of "the internets" in my everyday speech. Those same people also know that I really don't know anything about technology. Nor do I claim to. What's really interesting, though, is that we all make assumptions about the internet despite the fact that there are so few people out there that understand both the technical and ideological sides of the equation.
It's no surprise that I have an insatiable appetite for knowing about the social, economic, and political implications of the internet despite my glaring lack of understanding for the way it works. Enter "CBC Spark", one of my favourite productions on CBC Radio One. This programme really looks into the aforementioned intersection of technical and ideological components of the internet. The main idea that I get is something like this. The internet is both entirely abstract and an actual physical construct, though as I mentioned, it is rarely recognised as such. Education around the internet and technology in general is exceptionally poor in my opinion. The primary reason for this, I would argue, is because we are taught only to embrace technology as a necessary tool for economic and social survival. This emphasis ignores an important concern - understanding it the internet through a deconstruction of what it means on a personal level and on a wider political plane.
The reason why I'm writing this short blog is because I just came across a story earlier today and it troubled me deeply. A 17-year-old survivor of sexual assault is facing serious legal issues after publishing on the internet the names of the minors who attacked her. In North America there are already troubling enough discourses around sexual crime, notably blaming the victim and letting the perpetrators off. I think it's evident where I stand on this issue, but I will make it patently clear regardless. The fact that sexual assault still happens to roughly 25 per cent of North American women is despicable. What's even worse is the pervasive idea that these sorts of crimes aren't happening and don't need to be talked about. The worst part, however, is that our legal systems aren't prepared for the twenty-first century realities of the internet.
On the macro level, the issue that the aforementioned case brings up to me is that the internet is so new (in a historical sense) that its affects on society are barely understood. The cultural ideas about law (which are traditional) and the internet (which are just forming) often aren't being discussed together. I find this very troubling, though not at all surprising. Just how should publication bans work in the digital age? Is someone's social networking page, blog, or website considered public or private? The lines are being blurred, and the legal ramifications are much more significant than people would initially believe.
A more critical discourse of the technology in our lives is a must. It already exists, but its on the fringes of public consciousness: academic reports and blogs by activists. I understand people just want the convenience, the immediate gratification, and the status that comes with social media, the internet, and new technology. I really understand these social expectations.
I hope that in the near future people will start realising that the internet is a merely a repository for society - a mirror that reflects the myriad ways we construct the world around us. The internet, as a form of mass communication, needs to be taken seriously by law. We need to learn from history - the introduction of the printing press in the sixteenth century radically changed the way that information was both produced and consumed, and laws changed to reflect that. The same needs to happen today, but it won't unless people fight against the status quo of the internet being a tool used to support the status quo of privilege for monetary expansion, for expressing hate, and for strengthening conformity.
It's no surprise that I have an insatiable appetite for knowing about the social, economic, and political implications of the internet despite my glaring lack of understanding for the way it works. Enter "CBC Spark", one of my favourite productions on CBC Radio One. This programme really looks into the aforementioned intersection of technical and ideological components of the internet. The main idea that I get is something like this. The internet is both entirely abstract and an actual physical construct, though as I mentioned, it is rarely recognised as such. Education around the internet and technology in general is exceptionally poor in my opinion. The primary reason for this, I would argue, is because we are taught only to embrace technology as a necessary tool for economic and social survival. This emphasis ignores an important concern - understanding it the internet through a deconstruction of what it means on a personal level and on a wider political plane.
The reason why I'm writing this short blog is because I just came across a story earlier today and it troubled me deeply. A 17-year-old survivor of sexual assault is facing serious legal issues after publishing on the internet the names of the minors who attacked her. In North America there are already troubling enough discourses around sexual crime, notably blaming the victim and letting the perpetrators off. I think it's evident where I stand on this issue, but I will make it patently clear regardless. The fact that sexual assault still happens to roughly 25 per cent of North American women is despicable. What's even worse is the pervasive idea that these sorts of crimes aren't happening and don't need to be talked about. The worst part, however, is that our legal systems aren't prepared for the twenty-first century realities of the internet.
On the macro level, the issue that the aforementioned case brings up to me is that the internet is so new (in a historical sense) that its affects on society are barely understood. The cultural ideas about law (which are traditional) and the internet (which are just forming) often aren't being discussed together. I find this very troubling, though not at all surprising. Just how should publication bans work in the digital age? Is someone's social networking page, blog, or website considered public or private? The lines are being blurred, and the legal ramifications are much more significant than people would initially believe.
A more critical discourse of the technology in our lives is a must. It already exists, but its on the fringes of public consciousness: academic reports and blogs by activists. I understand people just want the convenience, the immediate gratification, and the status that comes with social media, the internet, and new technology. I really understand these social expectations.
I hope that in the near future people will start realising that the internet is a merely a repository for society - a mirror that reflects the myriad ways we construct the world around us. The internet, as a form of mass communication, needs to be taken seriously by law. We need to learn from history - the introduction of the printing press in the sixteenth century radically changed the way that information was both produced and consumed, and laws changed to reflect that. The same needs to happen today, but it won't unless people fight against the status quo of the internet being a tool used to support the status quo of privilege for monetary expansion, for expressing hate, and for strengthening conformity.
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
Politicising a Non-Partisan Issue?
As many of you who occasionally read my blog know, I recently went to the House of Commons to hear a motion about the creation of a special committee to look into what role the federal government should take in helping co-operatives. Yesterday, I went to see the committee in session in downtown Ottawa, and I aim to write about the proceedings of yesterday's meeting in a wider context around the issues that co-operatives are facing.
Again, I will reiterate the fact that I recently started working in the co-operative sector for an amazing organisation called the Canadian Worker Co-op Federation. In the past eight months (since I was first properly introduced to co-operatives while at Occupy Ottawa) I have learned an amazing amount about what co-operatives are and how they can ameliorate environmental, social, and economic problems, all of which play into political discourse. In this blog post, I'm going to talk about the historical trajectory of the movement, including the current political climate and what impact it will have on the sector in the short term and in the long term.
The co-operative was an alternative social and economic relationship, forged during the Industrial Revolution in England. Co-operatives allowed people who had little access to resources to stand up against the bourgeoisie - the class of wealthy industrialists who owned the factories, the stores, the housing, the fields, the media, and who thus dictated social and economic life. Over the course of the nineteenth century, co-operatives grew in Britain, and the model spread around the world by the turn of the twentieth century. In Canada, co-operatives sprouted all across the country, notably around agriculture. Some of the oldest still in operation today include: the Canadian University Press (since 1938), The Co-operators (since 1945), Desjardins (since 1900), and the Guelph Campus Co-op (since 1913). The co-operative movement has remained strong, but Canadian co-operatives are unique in the global movement. Firstly, many co-operatives are not integrated with one another. A lot of this comes down to the fact that these enterprises are often geographically far away from one another (many co-operatives exist in the most remote of communities), that the movement is rather fragmented by language, and that regional co-operative associations tend to be more closely connected to communities than larger federated structures.
This lack of a united co-operative front is exacerbated by the same issue that co-operatives experience around the world. Hegemony in a capitalist society means that the elite have economic, social, and legal mechanisms which reinforce the status quo by maintaining order. The co-operative movement is Canada is already fragmented, meaning that it suffers from a relative inability to articulate a complex series of ideas in simple, easy-to-understand ways. This is amplified significantly when media outlets are run by the elite for the elite. Despite the fact that new media have emerged in the past two decades, effectively democratising discourse, the general public still views traditional news sources like television newscasts and daily newspapers as "trusted" media. This reality produces mammoth problems for those who are trying to articulate alternatives.
Let's briefly look at some examples. Bell owns CTV. Rogers owns CityTV and Omni. Shaw owns Global. This leaves the CBC, which the government is currently slashing, as the only national news media that is not in fact owned by a corporation. While this trend is certainly true in television, it is most certainly mirrored with large radio stations as well as newspapers.
The reason why I have gone to great length to describe this reality is because it shapes the potentialities that the co-operative sector can in fact take. Co-ops, which pose a threat to the idea of recklessness, greed, and exploitation, pose a threat to large corporations and thus pose a threat to media outlets. The hegemony to which I earlier alluded is rampant in our modern society, acting as a malicious force that keeps alternative viewpoints from gaining traction and ultimately being implemented on a large scale.
For the most part, the Special Committee on Co-operatives that is currently in session this summer is exploring not whether co-operatives are useful, but whether or not they should promoted. This discourse played itself out very interestingly during the session I attended yesterday, and I will now go on to comment on this. Co-operatives have largely been supported by people from across the political spectrum because they serve to meet people's social and economic needs. As such, co-operatives have managed to remain (particularly in Canada) a very non-partisan issue. One of the comments that was made at the meeting yesterday (from an NDP committee member) was that co-ops unite us all, but that the Conservatives are turning co-operatives into a political issue. This is being done both with the policy changes themselves and with the characteristic lack of transparency.
Largely, it seems that the division on the committee is that the government feels that co-operatives are doing well for themselves and that they should not receive any supports from the state. The opposition, however, do not characterise the current landscape as a level playing field, and this is of course for a variety of reasons. Co-operatives often don't get much media exposure because they pose a threat to the status quo. Additionally, they make up a significantly smaller part of the volume of the market, meaning that they are a minority. They can sometimes struggle to gain access to capital, and they are often not taken seriously by potential investors. They usually have flatter organisational structures without public relations departments, making it difficult for them to be heard above the white noise. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they are not part of general knowledge on economics and society, likely because they are not explained in public schools.
For the government, acknowledging these problems could mean taking on a position where they might have to provide social, economic, and political support for co-operatives. Given that the Conservatives have repeatedly articulated their "economy first" neoliberal agenda, it seems unlikely that they would want to invest in a sector of the economy that shares growth fairly. Conservative members of the committee generally spent most of their questioning time asking relatively mundane questions about the functioning or profitability of co-ops, mostly to illustrate that existing co-operatives seem to be healthy. Additionally, the argument was advanced that the purpose of investing in co-operatives should be solely to make markets more competitive, anything else is "just ideology". All this, of course, was to reinforce that the government should have a "smaller footprint" on the sector (this coming from several government agencies).
The opposition, however, used their time to ask pointed questions of the witnesses, trying to understand broader ideas around the co-operative sector. Moreover, the question was repeatedly asked why the witnesses thought that the government was cutting a programme that was both so effective and so inexpensive. Witnesses answered saying that the cuts were part of austerity or that they were ideological, but either way suggesting that the cuts were a poor decision and that the sector is in need of government support. Perhaps most interestingly, a witness stated that it's rather strange that governments around the world are using taxpayer money to bail out failing corporations while they hold out on co-operatives. The question of whether or not the sector needed monetary support was addressed by every witness, though the best response was that "co-operatives don't need favours, we need fairness".
Ultimately, it seems that the lines are drawn. Conservative committee members, who are meeting during their normal summer break, are unhappy with spending time in committee. Many seemed unprepared and they were often not even paying much attention. The chair of the committee, a Conservative, was perhaps the most disengaged from the process. He also abused his position as chair to silence Mauril Bélanger when he attempted to engage in points of process (notably the sharing of communiqué from the Canadian Co-op Association with the full committee). The aloofness of the government, however, was very much a political position - failing to be transparent and failing to take interest both spoke volumes about the Conservative position.
With that in mind, I'd like to very briefly talk about politicisation. When I heard Wayne Marston comment about politicisation, I was worried that this would be divisive and could harm the co-operative movement. But upon further reflection, it seems that making it a political issue could have serious benefits, such as closer liaising with governments, more awareness on the part of the public, and a stronger sense of solidarity. At this point, it is incredibly unclear if politicisation will be positive, negative, or both. Additionally, it's also uncertain if it could prove to be more problematic in the short term, but pay off later, or vice versa. Regardless, I look forward to seeing and hearing more about this from colleagues, from the public, from the media, and from the special committee.
Again, I will reiterate the fact that I recently started working in the co-operative sector for an amazing organisation called the Canadian Worker Co-op Federation. In the past eight months (since I was first properly introduced to co-operatives while at Occupy Ottawa) I have learned an amazing amount about what co-operatives are and how they can ameliorate environmental, social, and economic problems, all of which play into political discourse. In this blog post, I'm going to talk about the historical trajectory of the movement, including the current political climate and what impact it will have on the sector in the short term and in the long term.
The co-operative was an alternative social and economic relationship, forged during the Industrial Revolution in England. Co-operatives allowed people who had little access to resources to stand up against the bourgeoisie - the class of wealthy industrialists who owned the factories, the stores, the housing, the fields, the media, and who thus dictated social and economic life. Over the course of the nineteenth century, co-operatives grew in Britain, and the model spread around the world by the turn of the twentieth century. In Canada, co-operatives sprouted all across the country, notably around agriculture. Some of the oldest still in operation today include: the Canadian University Press (since 1938), The Co-operators (since 1945), Desjardins (since 1900), and the Guelph Campus Co-op (since 1913). The co-operative movement has remained strong, but Canadian co-operatives are unique in the global movement. Firstly, many co-operatives are not integrated with one another. A lot of this comes down to the fact that these enterprises are often geographically far away from one another (many co-operatives exist in the most remote of communities), that the movement is rather fragmented by language, and that regional co-operative associations tend to be more closely connected to communities than larger federated structures.
This lack of a united co-operative front is exacerbated by the same issue that co-operatives experience around the world. Hegemony in a capitalist society means that the elite have economic, social, and legal mechanisms which reinforce the status quo by maintaining order. The co-operative movement is Canada is already fragmented, meaning that it suffers from a relative inability to articulate a complex series of ideas in simple, easy-to-understand ways. This is amplified significantly when media outlets are run by the elite for the elite. Despite the fact that new media have emerged in the past two decades, effectively democratising discourse, the general public still views traditional news sources like television newscasts and daily newspapers as "trusted" media. This reality produces mammoth problems for those who are trying to articulate alternatives.
Let's briefly look at some examples. Bell owns CTV. Rogers owns CityTV and Omni. Shaw owns Global. This leaves the CBC, which the government is currently slashing, as the only national news media that is not in fact owned by a corporation. While this trend is certainly true in television, it is most certainly mirrored with large radio stations as well as newspapers.
The reason why I have gone to great length to describe this reality is because it shapes the potentialities that the co-operative sector can in fact take. Co-ops, which pose a threat to the idea of recklessness, greed, and exploitation, pose a threat to large corporations and thus pose a threat to media outlets. The hegemony to which I earlier alluded is rampant in our modern society, acting as a malicious force that keeps alternative viewpoints from gaining traction and ultimately being implemented on a large scale.
For the most part, the Special Committee on Co-operatives that is currently in session this summer is exploring not whether co-operatives are useful, but whether or not they should promoted. This discourse played itself out very interestingly during the session I attended yesterday, and I will now go on to comment on this. Co-operatives have largely been supported by people from across the political spectrum because they serve to meet people's social and economic needs. As such, co-operatives have managed to remain (particularly in Canada) a very non-partisan issue. One of the comments that was made at the meeting yesterday (from an NDP committee member) was that co-ops unite us all, but that the Conservatives are turning co-operatives into a political issue. This is being done both with the policy changes themselves and with the characteristic lack of transparency.
Largely, it seems that the division on the committee is that the government feels that co-operatives are doing well for themselves and that they should not receive any supports from the state. The opposition, however, do not characterise the current landscape as a level playing field, and this is of course for a variety of reasons. Co-operatives often don't get much media exposure because they pose a threat to the status quo. Additionally, they make up a significantly smaller part of the volume of the market, meaning that they are a minority. They can sometimes struggle to gain access to capital, and they are often not taken seriously by potential investors. They usually have flatter organisational structures without public relations departments, making it difficult for them to be heard above the white noise. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they are not part of general knowledge on economics and society, likely because they are not explained in public schools.
For the government, acknowledging these problems could mean taking on a position where they might have to provide social, economic, and political support for co-operatives. Given that the Conservatives have repeatedly articulated their "economy first" neoliberal agenda, it seems unlikely that they would want to invest in a sector of the economy that shares growth fairly. Conservative members of the committee generally spent most of their questioning time asking relatively mundane questions about the functioning or profitability of co-ops, mostly to illustrate that existing co-operatives seem to be healthy. Additionally, the argument was advanced that the purpose of investing in co-operatives should be solely to make markets more competitive, anything else is "just ideology". All this, of course, was to reinforce that the government should have a "smaller footprint" on the sector (this coming from several government agencies).
The opposition, however, used their time to ask pointed questions of the witnesses, trying to understand broader ideas around the co-operative sector. Moreover, the question was repeatedly asked why the witnesses thought that the government was cutting a programme that was both so effective and so inexpensive. Witnesses answered saying that the cuts were part of austerity or that they were ideological, but either way suggesting that the cuts were a poor decision and that the sector is in need of government support. Perhaps most interestingly, a witness stated that it's rather strange that governments around the world are using taxpayer money to bail out failing corporations while they hold out on co-operatives. The question of whether or not the sector needed monetary support was addressed by every witness, though the best response was that "co-operatives don't need favours, we need fairness".
Ultimately, it seems that the lines are drawn. Conservative committee members, who are meeting during their normal summer break, are unhappy with spending time in committee. Many seemed unprepared and they were often not even paying much attention. The chair of the committee, a Conservative, was perhaps the most disengaged from the process. He also abused his position as chair to silence Mauril Bélanger when he attempted to engage in points of process (notably the sharing of communiqué from the Canadian Co-op Association with the full committee). The aloofness of the government, however, was very much a political position - failing to be transparent and failing to take interest both spoke volumes about the Conservative position.
With that in mind, I'd like to very briefly talk about politicisation. When I heard Wayne Marston comment about politicisation, I was worried that this would be divisive and could harm the co-operative movement. But upon further reflection, it seems that making it a political issue could have serious benefits, such as closer liaising with governments, more awareness on the part of the public, and a stronger sense of solidarity. At this point, it is incredibly unclear if politicisation will be positive, negative, or both. Additionally, it's also uncertain if it could prove to be more problematic in the short term, but pay off later, or vice versa. Regardless, I look forward to seeing and hearing more about this from colleagues, from the public, from the media, and from the special committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)