Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 16:51:55 +0100
To: politics-of-meaning@igc.topica.com
From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.JordanGU@t-online.de>
Subject: RE: [POM] The Modern Maccabbees in Seattle
Cc: rabbilerner@tikkun.org

I found it would be a good exercise for myself to take a closer look at Michael Lerners argumentation in the article "Protest in Seattle: The Modern Maccabees", since I do share his basic values, but at the same time I am quite concerned about aspects of his reasoning. I’ll not go into my opinions about the concrete issues here (the "what" of the WTO) but focus on the way advocating of political ideas are made (the "how").

I’ll start by summarizing Lerner’s reasoning under four headings: Framing; Interpretation of causality; Issues; and Demands.

FRAMING

The frame Lerner provides for his article is a parable: the Jewish Chanukah struggle, where a small group of people fought against a powerful and oppressive empire that wanted to curb the independence of the Jewish people. Lerner points out that this struggle was not only against the oppressors, but also against the fellow countrymen who argued that there was no alternative to accommodate to the oppressive reality by trying to work out as good terms as possible with the oppressors. He goes even further, and says that those who think that it is smart to accommodate to an oppressive reality are atheists (in a specific sense), whereas belief in God implies a moral necessity of struggling against oppression. Belief in God also implies a belief that "there is something about the universe" that makes such a struggle potentially winnable.

He argues that the contemporary situation is similar, but now the empire is a group of very powerful transnational corporations.

This frame consequently means, as I interpret it, that the present controversy about the WTO ought to be seen in terms of a guerilla war against an oppressive empire, where the guerilla fighters are representatives of the good forces in the universe, ultimately God.

INTERPRETATION OF CAUSALITY

The basic problem, in Lerners view, is the existence of a group of powerful corporations, who are able to dictate the terms to governments and peoples around the world, and thereby shape the cultural and political life. These corporations are striving for domination, and their main instrument for achieving this is liberalisation of markets, rather than the classic means of imperialism, military control. The WTO has been created by these corporations to extend their control in countries where democratic processes has introduced constraints, based on concerns for the environment, labour interests and human rights, on the free pursuit of profits. The WTO is a way of implementing and enforcing policies which would be rejected by the peoples of the world in a democratic process. The purpose of the WTO is to introduce severe constraint on the freedom of nations and citizens to try to protect their environments, their jobs, their food and their rights.

The majority of American citizens are opposed to the goals of the WTO, but American politicians are dependent on financial contributions to their election campaigns from the corporate elite. They will therefore rather listen to corporate interests than to the voices of the people.

ISSUES

The main issues Lerner focus on are the needs for protecting the environment, protecting jobs, protecting health (e.g. through food regulations) and to protect human rights. Lerner argues that the goals of the WTO conflicts with these concerns in important ways. WTO rules could make it possible for foreign corporations to block actions of nations and other decision-making bodies to prevent environmental damage, to require that profits are reinvested locally, to require firms to hire local workers, to participate in boycott actions, to favour local or minority suppliers in procurement, and to regulate capital flows.

DEMANDS

In terms of concrete demands Lerner endorses suggestions that the WTO should be prevented from interfering with the rights of countries and localities to introduce regulations concerning products that may be detrimental to the environment or to health. He also proposes that the USA should adopt a constitutional amendment requiring corporations operating in the USA to prove that they are acting in a social responsible way as a condition for being allowed to carry out their activities.

COMMENTS

I find Lerner’s frame and interpretation of the situation problematic. The frame uses a strongly charged image that evokes a lot of feelings in people who identify with the theme of struggling against oppression. I am certainly such a person myself, but I am very concerned about the implications of this particular frame. The frame and the interpretations of the present situation suggest that the main problem is the perceived counterpart: the large corporations and their allies. Such a frame is inherently adversarial and leaves only the option of unilateral action (see below). I would strongly prefer a frame that focuses on the values and issues that are seen as important instead. With such a frame, it is not the counterpart as such which is the problem, but the actions and structures that stand in the way of realizing these values.

In politics (as in every kind of social interaction) we have two basic options: (a) seeking a solution based on mutual consent through dialogue or negotiations, or (b) trying to realize our own standpoints by unilateral action, such as pressure, force, threats, etc. While the (a) option is inherently preferable, it is often impossible to use because the counterpart is not prepared to accommodate in a way oneself finds acceptable. However, I am strongly convinced that we should have a basic commitment to seek solutions based on mutual consent whenever it is possible without selling out our core values. This means that the option of entering negotiations should always be kept open. Lerner’s mythical frame suggests that Good People do not negotiate with the counterpart, because the counterpart is defined as an oppressor. Using such mythical images reinforces implacability, and stands in the way of taking a sober look at the factual issues at hand. I don’t think it is necessary to regard the (a) and (b) options as either-or alternatives. Being prepared to talk and negotiate doesn’t imply that one has to abstain from other action alternatives if need be.

Invoking spirituality in politics is a very appealing idea, I think, but I believe it is utterly important to discern between two different ways of doing this. The progressive way of spiritualizing politics is to relate political goals and actions to transcendent values, i.e. values that are intrinsically good, rather than just good for ourselves. The other way of invoking spirituality is claiming that "we" represent the Good (=God), whereas our foes represent evil. There is no end to the destruction that has been wrought on human beings during the last millenia because groups of people have believed that they are God’s representatives on earth, and that they carry out God’s will by destroying their enemies. We must learn to keep moral merit and groups of people apart. No group is inherently good or inherently evil. All human beings have the potential of doing good. The interpretations we make about what the world is like are a much more important source of problems than inherent moral qualities.

By defining the basic problems in terms of a morally corrupt party that strives for domination, our attention is turned away from finding workable solutions to environmental, social, political and health problems mentioned in the article. I think a crucial question is if Lerner’s interpretations of the situation are open to further inquiry, or if they are closed. Can the present situation be framed in different ways? Is there a possibility that Lerner’s views about the nature of the WTO issues is incomplete? Is it demonstrated beyond doubt that the political process is corrupt? Is there an openness to work at several levels and with different strategies? Is it OK to ask questions like these?

I think that the WTO issues can be framed in other ways than Lerner’s, and I think that Lerner’s interpretation of the background to the WTO is highly simplified. I am concerned that Lerner’s interpretation closes a lot of options about how we can work for better protection of the environment and health, for better social conditions, for human rights, and for empowerment of diverse groups of disadvantaged people. I think that the values Lerner mentions are important and should be included in serious discussions. I also think that the concrete suggestions he makes should be considered, but I do hope that Lerner and those who share his standpoints are prepared to listen to other perspectives. So I really hope that Lerner’s mythical parable and his interpretation of the forces behind the WTO do not reinforce the adversarial attitude in the political debate. This attitude is one of the main obstacles to realize a range of spiritual values, in my opinion.

Thomas Jordan