TRINITY NEWS
Tuesday 30th October 2012
Editorial
Recasting the narrative
T Rónán Burtenshaw Editor
he phrase “survival of the fittest” was coined by the English social Darwinist and philosopher Herbert Spencer. Darwin, liking the phrase, chose to use it in the fifth edition of his Origin of Species as a synonym for his theory of natural selection in evolution. He later regretted it. The conflation of Darwinian evolutionary theory with social and economic policy suited those in power in the 19th century. It acted as a justification for the enormous inequality that prevailed – “the rich were rich because they were superior and the poor were poor because they were inferior” – this was the way of the world. Social Darwinism gave impetus to supremacism, encouraging eugenics and the idea of herrenvolk. In a dynamic that bears comparison with modern free-market economics, it gifted to those who justify supremacy the legitimacy of misapplied science. This is a valuable asset to ideologues engaged in what John Kenneth Galbraith called “the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” The ghost of social Darwinism still lurks in the background of human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, but it has now been largely discredited. The contemporary scientific study of humanity recognises a broader spectrum of human ability, with differentiated intelligences and modalities, where the scientific consensus is that the actual scale of difference in human brainpower is quite small. As the late Stephen Jay Gould put it, “I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” But just as the powerful have been able to manipulate discussions about debt by framing them as moral questions, they have also been able to frame discussion of the economy in capitalism as a moral question. One of the most important tasks for those seeking to expose and combat the injustice of the prevailing system will be to undermine this moral argument and to recast it as a power relation. The narrative at the moment continues largely uninterrupted on the path social Darwinism walked. Those who have wealth are no longer said to have it because they are biologically superior. That, largely – beware the bell curve – won’t fly any more. Instead they possess it because they have “earned” it in some fair system. The fairness of biological superiority here has been substituted with a game – the market economy – to which everyone has equal access and whose rules apply equally to all participants. We are asked to ignore the his-
tory behind this game. There is little or no mention of the fact that there was no phase of wealth redistribution, no economic reset, after the great historical crimes of colonialism, imperialism or slavery. Or that the international economic disparities created by those phenomena persist, in the main, today. But also the fact that this game is being played on a skewed field, with one team possessing more players. Similarly, post-politics asks us to believe Francis Fukuyama’s argument that we had reached the “end of history”. No tomorrow, no yesterday – just today. And today “we are where we are” – neoliberalism – so suck it up. “Earning” within the capitalist framework means getting what you can, as much as you can, as quickly as you can. This is how the competitive profit motive works. If it was a system based on some moral concept of earning, the top 2% of the world’s population wouldn’t own more than 50% of the wealth while the bottom 50% owned 1%. Neither would the six Walton family heirs own more wealth than the bottom 100 million Americans. You get what you can and you don’t give it back – which is not to say people don’t work hard for what they get; rather, this isn’t a moral framework for earning and therefore shouldn’t be addressed with moral language. The strongest, least fanciful arguments for capitalism frame it in a realistic context, not an idealistic one. They would acknowledge it as a system in the historical tradition of Thucydides, where questions are answered “between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. And they would justify this with a description of “human nature” which emphasises greed and individualism. Those of us seeking to provide an alternative to deepening inequality and suffering should not deny that “we are where we are” – capitalist hegemony. But we have got to recast where, exactly, this is. There is widespread ackowledgement of the different set of rules for the rich and poor in society. A number of times recently I have been drawn into conversations about disparities of justice for the powerful and the rest. These conversations have descended, at a certain point, into wayward nostalgia about times when this was not the case. This feeds into the notion that really we have just messed up a perfectly good system – not one that inevitably results in justice depending on your position of power. Anacharsis wrote in the sixth century BC that the law was like a spider’s web: strong
All on the cover of Newsweek Hannah Cogan Public Editor On 18th October, Newsweek did something radical. Shifting purely to online content, Newsweek decided it will publish its last print edition on 31st December of this year, ending a 79-year print run, and will shift to a single, global edition released in a digital format. I, for one, think this is brilliant. The wood can stay in the forests, the oil to process newsprint can stay in the ground and the fumes can stay in factory smokestacks and not spew all over the place. Information will get to me more quickly, accessibly and cheaply, and if we are really lucky, other newspapers will cop on to this business model and they will stop going under at a startling rate. I am apparently the only person who thinks this way. The New York Observer thinks “the second media winter” is on the way; the Express Tribune has declared it “the end of reading”; Forbes thinks it is “the end of print, or at least the end of Newsweek”. The world has been slow to
embrace the full capabilities of a networked planet. The internet has changed how we interact with the world around us and will continue to do so. Movie studios, the music industry, and journalism decry its rise for a simple reason: as businesses, they will only exist as long as they can claim to be the solution to a problem. When that problem stops existing, their industry becomes obsolete, and thus perpetuating that problem is in their own self-interest. The music industry insists it makes a career in music tenable by allowing artists to sell their recordings, pushing legislation to punish file sharing and free downloads. They exist as a solution to the problem of procuring copies of music and have an interest in maintaining that problem. Even as the industry tries to restrict the impact of the internet on its existing business model, it is failing: Sony, EMI and BMG all report huge losses in the sale of recordings; individual artists, increas-
ingly, maintain their income through live shows and tours, experiences that the internet cannot replicate. Emerging bands find increasing stability in a linked-in world that promotes easy sharing and more gig revenue through increased exposure. Journalism follows much the same model, but is in some ways unique. Dealing with information, rather than an artistic product, makes its evaluation harder and arguably more consequential. Deciding that you do not like a new band requires no special skills to evaluate, and the only significant consequence is a slightly smaller music library for you, and a band or two who should stick to their day jobs. Deciding who to trust as a news source on the internet requires some prior knowledge and comparing a number of accounts of events, as well as possibly being able to evaluate any bias on the part of the author. The results, meanwhile, can inform voting patterns
enough to catch the weak but too weak to catch the strong. Capitalism has not been in existence since the sixth century BC, but it is firmly in the tradition of power-based realist politics that existed then – systems where inequalities are justified by appeals to rugged human nature. Capitalism is, essentially, just another in the succession of power-based hierarchies – with differentiated, interconnected, interacting systems of domination and subjugation – that have been the predominant social orders for humanity. Seeing capitalism as a power-based system has important ramifications for framing political actions therein. Those of us interested in equality must seek to create political discourse that allows them to speak and which accounts for power positions. We should refuse to engage in discussions about economics or politics that are framed in “flat Earth” positives – like things that are good for “the economy” – but that ignore the reality that the economy applies differently to different people, based on their positions of power; conversations that are, inevitably, framed by the powerful to fit their interests. We must dismiss the belief that compelling arguments about economic growth or the need for demand will be enough to provoke a shift in policy away from austerity. Likewise an appeal to this government to “live up to their commitments”. The seriousness with which the government treats its commitments is directly proportional to the power of those to whom those commitments were made. So, the commitment to the troika – to devastate Irish society with an austerity programme of cuts and taxes to pay for privatesector banking debt – is more important than any promise made to voters. An understanding of capitalism that emphasises power relationships must see the government as tending towards the interests of those with most power by definition. The job of those without power, in the first instance, is to fight to set the boundaries of possibility for the government – to restrict them in their ability to favour the powerful at the expense of the rest. The first challenge is to recast the narrative around the economic crisis to the fight – between those with power and those without, those who are ruling and those who are ruled – and away from the politics of false mutuality. The “difficult decisions” that are being taken do not apply to us all equally, as you may have noticed; 7,000 people went to jail for not paying fines in 2011 while we’re still waiting for the first banker behind bars: we are not “all in this together”.
19
Elaine McCahill
Here comes the fear
Editor-at-Large Last week I was at a party, and the conversation inevitably turned towards post-graduation plans. Are you staying in Trinity? Are you doing a master’s? Are you going to travel? Are you going to get a job? And so on, ad nauseam. A few friends had answers to the plethora of questions surrounding finishing one’s degree, but for the most part we were stumped. A few mumbled about looking into graduate programmes. We all agreed that we pretty much ignored the Careers Advisory Service emails every week and we did not really have a clue about how to even go about applying for postgraduate courses. Why, though, do we bury our heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge that we should really make some semblance of a plan for when we leave the cobbled lanes of Trinity? Two words: the fear. In university, the fear takes many different appearances: fear of missing out, fear of exams and essentially the fear of leaving. We spend four years here and we get settled and then we do not want to leave. We do not want to leave our friends, our lifestyle or our habits, and so we avoid thinking about it. It is hard to acknowledge that we, once again, have to leave an educational institution where we have made our lives for the past number of years. After leaving both primary and secondary school and making it to college, it is hard to accept that we are finally leaving institutional education. It is also challenging to leave Trinity, in particular. It is an incredibly special environment and one that cultivates amazing friendships and experiences. There is more to the fear than plain sentimentality. Master’s programmes are incredibly expensive and involve at least another year, if not two, of full-time education. In the current climate where undergraduate degrees are a standard on any young person’s CV, a specialised master’s or postgraduate degree is necessary to maintain an edge, unless you have
advanced experience in the area you wish to work in. In Ireland, these courses cost thousands in fees, not including accommodation or living expenses, thus making it an untenable choice for many. Loans are also not as accessible any more, nor are the part-time jobs needed to pay them back. This increasing expense and inaccessibility is in stark contrast to countries like Sweden or Norway who provide free postgraduate programmes for residents. While this is not feasible in Ireland, what with our extensive monetary troubles, even reducing the fees to just slightly more than the undergraduate registration fee would make it a far more accessible enterprise. Graduate programmes are another widely advertised option, but they require lengthy application and interview processes and are extraordinarily competitive. Even if you are ultimately offered the position it usually entails a commitment of at least a couple of years. If you want to stay in Ireland, the country is no longer filled with endless opportunities; it is more like an endless dole queue. As such, recent or impending graduates have to deal with the realisation that if they decide not to stay in higher education, they more than likely have to move abroad to find work. That is not to say that emigration is inherently negative. More recently, many journalists and commentators have described Ireland’s mass exodus of skilled and educated young people as being positive for our future. Many of these emigrants will establish themselves abroad, but it is also hoped that these young people will come back to settle here, with more experience and skills that will contribute greatly to the workforce. Although it is unfortunate that our economy can only provide jobs or experience for a small number of graduates, travelling abroad is beneficial for a broader and more comprehensive working experience. A few weeks ago, at a Careers Advisory Service talk
on a career in journalism or broadcasting, one of the speakers, Niamh Collins, the channel and products manager for RTÉ Digital, encouraged anyone hoping to get into the field to work abroad, particularly in London where opportunities for internships and junior editorial positions are more plentiful due to the sheer number of publications, television stations and production companies. While moving abroad may be necessary, it is also incredibly daunting. Whether it be alone, with friends or with a significant other, starting again in a new country or city requires a lot of effort and courage. It is not just moving away or starting a course at a different institution that is the fearful part of graduation. It is acknowledging that the prime, fun-loving years of our lives are coming to an end. That is not to say that the rest of our lives will not be incredibly fun; it is just that the carefree adventures of our undergraduate years are nearly finished. It is similar to when you leave secondary school; your friends are not accessible on a daily basis anymore, and now you have to make an effort to keep in touch. It will be the same when we leave here: no longer in each other’s pockets, able to meet up at a moment’s notice: no more random days drinking in the Pav, going to a debate or movie screening; no more ball season. It is a realisation that definitely leads to an increased appreciation of daily friendships, constant events and generally having the craic around College that in the next few years will be taken up with office politics, deadlines, month-end accounts and so on. While change is daunting, it is best to be prepared, so it is probably high time that those of us who mumble answers when asked about our future get around to making a plan – or even just researching one – so as to feel better about the fear of eventually having to leave this place behind us.
But many of us should be. Collective action is necessitated by a power-based system to harness the cumulative strength of the weak and fight against the dominance of the powerful. Despite the best efforts of commentators like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz to appeal to the better nature of those in power to change course, it is demonstrably the case after four years of recession that reasoned arguments won’t be enough. We need a resurgence of the struggle. “Power concedes nothing without a demand,” African-American
abolitionist and activist Frederick Douglass wrote in his Speech on West India Emancipation. “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted … The limits of [those in power] are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get.” Until we come together,
through collective action, to create a demand for justice, nothing is going to change. To educate, agitate, organise – that is the task of those interested in the survival of the weakest in 2012. But it starts with a fight against the hegemony of capitalism and a narrative that legitimises the grotesque inequality and injustice which exists, and is being deepened, today. The powerful in this crisis will impose as much hardship on the powerless as they can. The fight to recast the political narrative is the fight to have this known.
that might be different, stories that would not have made the news cycle, and political movements that would not have made it off the ground. The generally short attention span of the internet means that the world’s fringe ranters and ravers (Fred Phelps, #StopKony and Chen Guangchen all belong on this list) get a platform, for better or for worse. When Newsweek goes digital, its world will not end. Publication will not cease, and the spirit of the magazine will not be altered forever. It will not be a heavy blow to journalism and photography, forcing both to struggle for their lives against an unappreciative public, and it does not mark the gradual ceding of all journalistic power to the internet as Twitter’s abbreviated rants take preference over professional journalism. Instead, it marks the inevitable and applaudable stratification of the internet. The web is now a platform open to everybody, professional writer or not, but commercial success can only come with high traffic; and high traffic, increasingly, is limited to truly interesting writing. It is in the interest of online magazines and news sources to attract the best writers, driving up the quality of content, while the badge of Newsweek, the New York Times or something similar helps web users differentiate between good and bad journalism, and those are categories with objective descriptions, whatever your political stripes.
Witness the meteoric rise of Slate, one of the world’s best opinion and news sources, digital or otherwise. Their writers have an exceptional platform, it is information that is freely accessible to the public, and commercially it is more successful than most print media, particularly in bringing in ad revenue. The shift online is a great thing for media and the media-reading public. Yes, newspapers will employ a smaller production staff, and yes, people will lose jobs. People have also lost jobs manufacturing VHS tapes and manning telegraph offices; it is not an argument against improving an industry. We have a weirdly nostalgic attachment to print journalism; I like reading the Sunday paper in a coffee shop too, but the fact remains that we demonstrably do not like print journalism enough to keep the industry commercially viable. If we valued newspapers as much as we claim to, we would buy more of them, but we do not. Given the choice between gutting brilliant writers and editorial staff to keep a newspaper in print and putting brilliant content online, I will take the digital option every time. Newsweek are at the forefront of a revolution and there is no reason it should not work. The internet should not be only allowed to work halfway for the sake of preserving outdated institutions. Embrace it.