|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Mike Woodsworth's Book List Naomi Klein, No Logo (Picador USA, January 2000; December 2000) This now notorious book was published only weeks after the November 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle, which brought to prominence the global protest movement of which Klein has since become the most recognized figure. No Logo's central theme was that corporations have gained excessive power over our lives; that simple idea was _ and still is _ the major thread that ties together the highly diverse ideas woven into the movement. Klein argues that capitalism underwent a major shift in the late eighties when major corporations began focusing on selling brands, rather than products. With skyrocketing advertising budgets and creative new marketing ploys, companies such as Nike, McDonald's and Starbucks created lifestyles and new identities. They penetrated every public space and co-opted every form of opposition, to the point where they provoked a boomerang effect. Since the book was written before Seattle, when this boomerang seized the public's attention, Klein's analysis is instructive, especially for the countless journalists who tend to portray Seattle as the starting point of the global anti-corporate movement. Seattle was indeed a watershed moment, but No Logo definitively shows that there had been stirrings of dissent long before. Klein examines various means of anti-corporate resistance that have been virtually forgotten since a mass movement emerged, such as anti-sweatshop campus agitation, culture jamming and urban space liberation. No Logo has become a movement bible. Like the movement itself, the book is weakened by its reticence to propose solutions. Yet its criticisms are original and Klein's engaging, radical tone is irresistible for anyone disturbed by the triumphalist spread of the 1990s neoliberal order. Naomi Klein is reviled by her critics and adored by her fans, who have unofficially elected her their journalist of record. MORE: The No Logo Web site New York Times Book Review book review Guardian interview Why Naomi Klein Needs to Grow Up in The Economist: Profile on Naomi Klein in the Village Voice, by Joy Press: Gary Marshall of Spike Magazine likes the book: Kendra Okonski, in The National Review, doesn't: Amazon Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (2002) Throughout the decade of the 1990s, when the process of globalization began reshaping the world economic system, Joseph Stiglitz was the ultimate insider. As a former member of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, the chief economist at the World Bank, and later an economics professor at Columbia University, Stiglitz participated in the major policy debates within the United States government, and within the global systems of trade and development. Because of these credentials, Stiglitz's master critique of globalization was bound to draw attention. However, coming at a time when increasing numbers of people worldwide were attacking the current models of globalization, Stiglitz's articulate and well-informed arguments held great significance. They have been received by many people opposed to the corporate model of globalization as a validation of what they've been trying to say for years, and given renewed confidence to a movement that was questioning its role in the post-9/11 world. Stiglitz argues that the model of development put forth by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the US Treasury has failed. He examines each of the pillars of the Washington Consensus _ privatization, trade liberalization, fiscal austerity and decreased capital market controls _ and argues that the IMF has pursued them to excess, without regard for the peculiar circumstances of the developing countries upon which they were imposed. Stiglitz illustrates how policy makers in the IMF repeatedly pursued misguided policies in places such as Russia, East Asia and Argentina. Because of their blind attachment to free-market ideology, they refused to admit to these mistakes even when they became clear. Furthermore, Stiglitz accuses the rich world of blatant hypocrisy: by setting up unfair trading rules on behalf of powerful financial and commercial interests, organizations like the WTO cause great harm to the very societies they are claiming to rescue. The disastrous results, Stiglitz concludes, call for a complete overhaul of international trading rules, and most importantly, for a through rethinking of the entire foundation of globalization. Because of this last point, big name economists such as Jagdish Bhagwati and Kenneth Rogoff have denounced Stiglitz, saying his vision is too radical and utopian. Others, such as Dani Rodrik, support his findings and are working with him towards articulating a new program that could fulfill globalization's untapped potential. (An article in the NY Times by Michael Massing examines the controversy Stiglitz has raised in academic cricles: http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Business/Story/55314.html Stiglitz's work is a blessing to any journalist trying to make sense of globalization and the criticisms it has drawn. His arguments contain great detail and are bolstered by his insider knowledge of economic processes, yet his essential points are simple and clearly stated. Stiglitz has also assumed an important role in helping protestors better articulate their wide-ranging denunciations of the corporate globalization process. However, journalists should be wary of attributing the entirety of Stiglitz's systemic analysis to the diverse voices within the global justice movement. While some activists have embraced his ideas, it is important to remember that Stiglitz remains a firm believer in capitalism, Keynesian economic policy and globalization, all of which are highly contentious matters within anti-corporate circles. MORE: Piece by John Cassidy in The New Yorker, July 15 2002. Piece by Benjamin Friedman in the New York Review of Books Joe Stiglitz's Initiative for Policy Dialogue Michael Ignatieff, The Warrior's Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience (Henry Holt & Co., 1998; Owl Books, 1998) Part reportage, part historical narrative, part political philosophy, Ignatieff's work attempts to offer an explanation to the seemingly incomprehensible ethnic cruelty of the 1990s. He also wrestles with what the West should do about it. In examining the violence in Bosnia, Ignatieff applies Freud's work on narcissism. For Ignatieff, it is the "narcissism of minor difference" which causes ethnic brutality to arise in the wake of failed states. Where different ethnic groups once coexisted relatively peacefully, the decline of the state creates universal insecurity and forces people into groups. Since the different groups have little to distinguish them, yet they must legitimize their struggle, emergent leaders rely on minor differences to glorify their group and demonize the other. Thus the consolidation of political power becomes an exercise in selective memories and revisionist histories. The newly created differences are vital to group identity and meaningless at the same time. Violence is the most forceful way of making people feel a sense of group belonging. Once such violence erupts, Ignatieff says, a new kind of conflict takes place here ancient warrior codes _ which once dictated unwritten rules that minimized bloodshed and cruelty _ have been swept away by modernity. In making these arguments, Ignatieff proves that so-called "age-old ethnic hatreds" in fact arise more from the challenges of modernity than they do from any real historical foundation. Ethnic identities are not frozen in time, nor is ethnic conflict inevitable. Identities are malleable, and their assertion relies on specific circumstances. This analysis should caution journlaists who often readily accept the false historical tales that demagogues use to justify ethnic conflicts. For example, journalists should cease to characterize the Arab-Israeli conflict as the sequel to millenia of religious strife; following Ignatieff, they should instead offer the more accurate _ if complex _ portrayal of its modern political and military roots. Also of prime interest to journalists, Ignatieff critiques television's role in delivering the suffering of the world to viewers in the rich world. Because of the format of news programs, television has allowed the West to succumb to what Ignatieff calls the "seductiveness of moral disgust." As viewers face a nightly barrage of horrible images, each victim becomes nameless and blameless, historical context is removed, and pity melds with indifference. In response, Ignatieff calls for a change in journalistic practices and a more general ˇ®revolution of moral values" to reconnect the West with a suffering world it increasingly ignores. The Warrior's Honor immediately gained critical acclaim as one of the most thoughtful works about recent conflicts, while also arguing forcefully for some highly controversial point. Subsequent books examining similar themes, such as Chris Hedges's War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning and David Rieff's A Bed For the Night, have recognized Ignatieff's concepts, and in Rieff's case, gone to considerable lengths to counter them. MORE: Article by Hunter College political science Professor Sumit Ganguly, extolling the virtues of Ignatieff's book: New York Times book review Business Week book review Brandeis University's page of Ignatieff-related links, including interviews and reviews Amazon |
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||