Dylan Kerrigan
  • Home
  • About
  • Academic Writings
    • Consultancy Summaries
  • Books
  • Opeds/Blogs
  • Other Writings
  • Teaching
    • Graduate Supervision
  • Therapeutic Cultures
  • In the Press
  • Presentations
  • Videos
  • Research
    • Data Visualisations
    • Past
    • Current
    • Future
  • Blog

The tactics of dispossession

11/3/2013

0 Comments

 
Propaganda and myths of the powerful
Picture
Whether it’s Amazonian tribes, colonial authorities, or 21st-century governments, one thing many with political power have in common is the use of myths, symbols, and specialist language as tools of propaganda. Such propaganda is one of the subtle ways in which the consent of the masses to be ruled by interests groups not aligned with their own interests is often achieved.

Now since around the 1970s—both locally and internationally—there has been an orthodoxy pedalled by various interest groups connected to western governments about the benefits of privatisation. Globally, this onus flipped previous national commitments to a large and healthy public sector as the driver of national development to a new strategy based on privatisation, deregulation, competition and the marketisation of the public sector.

Privatisation became a culture. With the requisite language, myth-making, and worldview to make its claims to increased economic efficiencies, improved innovation, less unemployment and much more seem beyond doubt. 

Proponents of privatisation justify their claims about its benefits through the use of rational techniques. Presenters speak endlessly of “empirical data,” “cost-benefits analysis” and “economic modelling.” They will illustrate their arguments with flow charts, and diagrams with the various stages the sale and transfer of power and wealth will follow. 

Folk theory, which claims “the time is right” or “we have reached a certain stage in our development,” is peddled to make the functional case for privatisation. Often an ideal case is made too as though the effects of privatisation can be accurately predicted. All this presents privatisation as a rational response to social and economic “problems.”  

An anthropologist would describe such “problems” as social constructions. They are socially constructed because for issues to become social and economic “problems” worthy of a political fix, human actors must identify the specific issues, with a certain view on the situation in the first place. Privatisation, then, is not a rational response; it is a response dressed up as rational but tied to particular interest groups. 

For example, because privatisation is always a policy decision, the “need” for privatisation always has to be recognised by a person, or people, with power before it ever becomes a “need” to be acted on.

To the anthropologist, policies, just like myths in the Trobriand society of Papua New Guinea, or “ritual cycles” in the Ndembu culture of Zambia, are social mechanisms for hiding subjective, ideological and irrational goals. Policy, once supposedly neutral and objective, becomes a device that maintains societal inequalities and obscures the human agency and politics behind the decision-making process. 

Policy is not inert, scientific, and apolitical. It is always distinctly a political choice between key individuals. The State is not a neutral mechanism solely fixed on the betterment of society for all—that is another myth of modern society. The State acts in its own interests, not the interests of all. And policy itself often aligns with the interests of well-organised groups in society who can best influence policy makers.

Globally there is no academic consensus or conclusive evidence that privatisation consistently reduces government outlays or that privatisation is the most cost-effective way to provide essential public services. Sociology and anthropology often say something quite different from economics. Yet the culture of privatisation has seeped into our logic. So much so that for many people there is an almost moral necessity to do away with collective and public forms of ownership. 

Privatisation itself is a particular choice that determines how a society develops. It moves power and resources from one area to another. It transforms how a Government views its responsibilities. It re-aligns decision-making and institutions. And it often creates new interest groups. In particular, privatisation produces winners who are mostly the senior management of the privatised entity, political leaders, bureaucrats and the more wealthy members of society.

So when our various unions speak out against what they perceive as the creeping privatisation of various state enterprises such as Eximbank, First Citizens, Home Mortgage, Petrotrin, Plipdeco and others, we should take notice and name exactly which special interest groups will benefit from the push to take public goods into private hands.

Fundamentally, the myth-making surrounding privatisation hides the fact that neither the public sector nor the private sector is inherently more efficient than the other. Rather, they both have a particular influence on the culture, politics, and development of the wider society, that is, privatisation affects the direction a society grows and whether individual interests outweigh the common good.

http://guardian.co.tt/columnist/2013-03-11/tactics-dispossession
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Academia
    Amerindian
    Bias
    Capitalism
    Carnival
    Census
    Change
    Charlotteville
    Christmas
    Cipriani
    Citizenship
    Class
    Clico
    Colonialism
    Comedy
    Community
    Conspiracy
    Corruption
    Crime
    Critical Thinking
    Cultural Logic
    Cultural Logic
    Cultural Myth
    Culture
    Degradation
    Development
    Differences
    Disabilities
    Discourse
    Discrimination
    Diversity
    Division
    Drugs
    Economic
    Economics
    Economy
    Education
    Emancipation
    Emigration
    Employment
    Environment
    Equality
    Ethnicity
    Ethnocentrism
    Ethnology
    Family
    Gang
    Gender
    Governance
    Government
    Grenada
    Hcu
    History
    Homophobia
    Identity
    Imperialism
    Inequality
    Institutions
    Intellectualism
    Justice
    Language
    Legislation
    Marriage
    Mas
    Militarism
    Military
    Morality
    Multiculturalism
    National Security
    Nepotism
    Opportunity
    Patriarchy
    Policy
    Politics
    Poverty
    Power
    Precolonial
    Prejudice
    Prisons
    Privatisation
    Privilege
    Progress
    Propaganda
    Prostitution
    Race
    Reflexivity
    Relationships
    Religion
    Rights
    Science
    Security
    Segregation
    Sexism
    Sexuality
    Sex Work
    Slavery
    (small-goal) Football
    Social Media
    Soe
    Solidarity
    Speed
    State
    Status
    Success
    Taboo
    Teaching
    Technology
    Tobago
    Tourism
    Trade
    Transparency
    University
    Violence
    War
    White Collar
    White-collar

    Archives

    December 2022
    October 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    August 2020
    June 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    February 2019
    November 2017
    October 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    RSS Feed