Category Archives: Politics

Politics

What Is Affirmative Action? An Analysis Of The Temporary Arrangement Argument For Affirmative Action

Leave a comment

The Ambiguity of Affirmative Action: Analysis of the Temporary Arrangement Argument

The policy of affirmative action has been suggested as a temporary arrangement, this article will attempt to discern on what basis and why such policies should be ended? First, this article will PROVIDE A brief overview of the policies of Affirmative Action. Second, it will explore the pejorative critiques. Third, it will outline five reasons inherent to the policy that make it ambiguous, arguing that this ambiguity results in self-perpetuation. Therefore, this article will assert that the concept of temporal arrangement is merely a way to placate pejorative critiques of the policy. Finally, this temporal ambiguity is necessary to continue affirmative action – in the liberal democratic context and elsewhere – which, while still problematic, should be adjusted to strategically target the disadvantaged beyond identity-markers given its positive outcomes on societal diversity and integration.

There is no universal definition of affirmative action[1], positive action[2] or positive discrimination[3], however the UN suggests that “Affirmative action is a coherent packet of measures, of a temporary character, aimed specifically at correcting the position of members of a target group in one or more aspects of their social life, in order to obtain effective equality.”[4] There are competing interpretations from the ECHR, ILO, ICCPR but for the purposes of this article, affirmative action can be generally defined as a liberal democratic approach to enhancing a disadvantaged groups’ equality of opportunity within the grasp of the state. At a practical level this policy has two direct outcomes; one can mean that when two equally qualified individuals apply for a position such as higher education[5] the individual belonging to a disadvantaged group is awarded the position; more controversially, it also can prohibit members of a non-designated group from applying for opportunities while less qualified members of a designated group with lower individual merit are awarded the position.  

The justifications for implementing an affirmative action policy are compelling. It is compensation against intentional or accidental discrimination and past grievances – such as slavery – perpetrated by the dominant ethnie[6] and/or gender. It is seen as a necessary enhancement of diversity in the public and private sector of a society against the perpetuation of wealth and segregated social networking.[7] It can facilitate symbolic achievement of a minority group individual thus improving their collective standing in the perceptions of the dominant ethnie. It seeks to move to a society of equality of opportunity meaning taking into account the substantive[8] legal disadvantages or differences that formal legal equality does not. It is not just combating discrimination based on inalienable ethnicity or gender but combating legal interpretations of equality that advantage the dominant ethnie  (white) and gender (male). Formal equality would allow Sandra Lovelace to be treated equally in relation to other Indian women but not equally to a male Indian under the provisions of the Canada’s Indian Act[9] which restricts the definition of Aboriginal membership by gender. Substantive equality and affirmative action are congruent legal concepts.

The pejorative critique of affirmative action almost overwhelms the justifications. While race and economic class converge at the bottom, the policy is inexact; it often advantages the socio-economically advantaged while under privileging the less skilled in a discriminated group while simultaneously disadvantaging the poor in the dominant ethnie who then mobilize through democratic means. Their consternation is about fairness and the individual versus group conceptions of equality. Should affluent African American children be beneficiaries of the policy? In addition, affirmative action fights racism by categorizing people using ethnicity: the very object of discrimination. Who decides who you are? Another common complaint is that weaker admitted candidates may do poorly through such programs and have a psychological backlash as demonstrated by the Madeline Heilman Study.[10] In addition, the most damaging critique is – according a prominent beneficiary of affirmative action; Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – these policies perpetuate inequality, disrespect and that the normative goal of the US “constitution [to be] color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerated classes of citizenship.”[11]

Ambiguity of Affirmative Action

This article accepts the positive outcomes of affirmative action policy as outweighing the pejorative critiques with some adjustments, and will now focus specifically on the question of affirmative action as a  temporary arrangement, arguing that a) ambiguity results in perpetuation of the policy and b) that a completion date for these policies is merely a way to placate pejorative critiques of the policy.

The Morawa article highlights the details of affirmative action as a temporary arrangement, first introduced in November of 1963. Quoting the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, affirmative action should protect disadvantaged groups “…however…such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.”[12] If this were true then why is there no proposed concrete mechanism or rubric specifying measurable completion and dismantling? The reality of most affirmative action policies is quite divergent from this assumption of temporary arrangement. The spectrum of continued affirmative action moves from immediate nullification to the disingenuous temporary status to permanence. Affirmative action has been given an end point but only forcibly through the will of the majority as was the case of Proposition 209 in California and Michigan Proposal 2006-2[13] and judicial adjustments to some policies. Never have affirmative action policies been dismantled on the basis of complete success in their objectives: the reasons are numerous but all fall under the idea of temporal ambiguity.

There are at least five reasons why affirmative action has an ambiguous end point that cannot be specified. Below are five specific ways in which affirmative action policies remain ambiguous on the matter of termination:

First, the most logically deduced answer to when affirmative action should cease is at the point where the number of employment or academic positions are proportionate to the groups percentage of the population. That is, the disadvantaged group demographic size mirrors and has reached equilibrium with the demographic representation within the public and private spheres of society. There are several problems here but most obvious is that once the policy has reached this watermark and is therefore effectively terminated, the subsequent absence of this policy would lead to decline in proportionality since establishing this proportionality required the express support of the state.[14] Therefore, affirmative action is a self-perpetuating policy that cannot be suddenly ended because it is an artificial imposition that cannot continue to work without the state. Some kind of gradual approach might remedy this first issue but there are other reasons for ambiguity.

The second problem is that, according to Morawa, affirmative action should be curbed based on whether the objective equality has been met. Objective equality is when  “no reasonable and objective criteria exist that would justify a differentiation in treatment.”[15] This then leads to questions of what it means to be objective and whether the equality is reasonable. Interpretation of these two words can have affirmative action nullified tomorrow or never depending on the political leanings of the policy-markers.

The third problem is that affirmative action is anticipated to produce side-effects requiring further policy measures to deal with new forms of discrimination created in the wake of the initial policy. Morawa argues that “…Even action taken with the legitimate intent to remedy existing inequality adversely affecting one particular group may have an ‘unjustifiable disparate impact’ upon, or ‘disproportionately affect’ the rights of another distinguishable group.”[16] If there is continued anticipation of new distinguishable groups then the policies are effectively permanent only changing the identities of the beneficiaries.

The fourth problem would be that, according to the variety of cross-sectional cases highlighted by Modood, simply knowing when equality has been achieved is difficult to empirical quantify. Not all companies in the private and even the public sphere record detailed recruitment statistic to verify if the policy actually works. The constantly changing demographics of new immigrants also makes empirical measurements of any kind dubious at best. Therefore, ascertaining whether the policy is improving the situation of disadvantaged groups and the exact extent of that improvement is not being empirical measured. It was not until the Clinton’s 1995 Affirmative Action Review, that there were calls for “continual process to review the effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action programmes.”[17] In light of this, if there is no rigorous assessment there will be no means of ascertain its end point.

The fifth problem that has led to ambiguity is that politicians and legal scholars have entrenched affirmative action policies into their constitutions. This is particularly apparent in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which gives provisions for Affirmative Action under Section 15 subsection 2.[18] The idea of a permanence in the policy conflicts with the goal of the policy as a longterm means to eventually do away to eventually eliminate prejudice. It suggests that since there will always be differences, there must always be discrimination and anti-discrimination. Implicit in the policy is that there is no end but continued permanence to an unspecified point. This article suggests this high degree of ambiguity regarding such policies serves to perpetuate them: it is a structural reality with no particular agency other than the original policy creators.

The question is why is it not clear when the policy should (if ever) be nullified: immediately, in 25 years or never? As is argued above, there is no limit for the foreseeable future unless it is forcibly nullified. Justice Sandra O’Connor’s claim, during the 2003 Grutter v Bollinger case, that the “[US Supreme] Court expects that twenty fiver years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today”[19] is so plainly arbitrary that it borders on rhetorical obfuscation. That is why, this article has argued that temporary arrangement claims are primarily a means of placating those who are not completely convinced of the virtues of affirmative action with the idea that it will not exist forever.  A completion date for these policies is merely a means for liberals to argue for its continued support since their belief in the sacred value of individual rights is contradicted by support for disadvantaged rights. Unless these policies are forcibly removed – which is not desirable – the effect of continuing the myth of a temporary status placates critiques of the policy since it is purposively not permanent while effectively entrenching an unspecified permanence to such policies.

The ambiguity of affirmative action ultimately does not resolve the complaints, shortcomings and the contravention of individual merits rights. The negative side-effects almost derail the positive outcomes as was outlined above but a temporary arrangement is not going to resolve the underline pejorative critiques. There are many previous groups who have risen from collective poverty in America to be successful integration without affirmative action, particularly the Irish case.[20] Meanwhile, there are visible minorities who continue to struggle with policies that entrench their legal differentiation from society. The numerous treaties signed between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples in Canada is a permanent form of affirmative action which has limited or mixed results far to complicated to be addressed within this short article.

In conclusion, this article will briefly focus on what is to done about the ambiguity of affirmative action policies. Affirmative action needs to change who it targets not be nullified. If there is continued anticipation of new distinguishable groups then the policies are effectively permanent only changing the identities of the beneficiaries.  Having said that, affirmative action has no limit as a permanent policy that contravenes individual merit with the goal of raising groups out of social inequality. There will always be somebody at the bottom and affirmative action will always have a role to play if the polity’s majority is willing to accept it. The policy of affirmative action has been suggested as a temporary arrangement, this article attempted to discern on what basis should such policies be ended by examining the policy of affirmative action with particular emphasis on the pejorative critiques which a temporary arrangement partly offsets but does not resolve. It outlined five reasons inherent to the policy that make it ambiguous and effectively permanent. Concluding that given this ambiguity of affirmative action policies, it should remain as long as the majority groups has tacitly accepted it and recognize that it is a permanent fixture that continues into future generations.

Work Cited

  • A. H. E. Morawa, “The Concept of Non-Discrimination: An Introductory Comment”, Journal of Ethnic and Minority Issues in Europe, 3, 2002
  • California Proposition 209: accessed 18.03.09: http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/BP/209text.html
  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom: accessed 18.03.09: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
  • E. Kaufmann, ‘National Formation, Ethnic Reformation: the Social Sources of the American Nation’, Geopolitics, 7 (2), 98-120.
  • Grutter v Bollinger 2003: accessed 18.03.09 http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./539/306/
  • Heilman, ME (2004). “Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks”. Journal of applied psychology (0021-9010), 89 (3), p. 416.
  • McGoldrick, Dominic. Canadian Indians, Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Jul., 1991), pp. 658-669.
  • Professor Jackson-Preece: “Irish Rise in America.” EU458: Seminar 15.03.09
  • T. Modood et. al, Developing Positive Action Policies: Learning from the Experiences of Europe and North America, 2006
  • United Nations, Concept and Practice of Affirmative Action, 2002
  • [1] Predominant term used in New World high immigrant countries such as Canada, the US and Australia
  • [2] Predominant term used in the EU and the United Kingdom in order to circumvent the pejorative connotations associated with the backlash against affirmative action in the new world context.
  • [3] Predominant term used to emphasize that negative discrimination against disadvantage groups is ubiquitous or alternatively to emphasize the policy is ‘unjust’ towards the dominant ethnie.
  • [4] United Nations, Concept and Practice of Affirmative Action, 2002
  • [5] An essential means of furthering equality of opportunity.
  • [6] Coined by Anthony Smith by used in the Introduction of Kaufmann: E. Kaufmann, ‘National Formation, Ethnic Reformation: the Social Sources of the American Nation’, Geopolitics, 7 (2), 98-120.
  • [7] As in low levels of integration because of limited opportunities to interethnic interaction within the society.
  • [8] Substantive equality: taking into account disadvantages.
  • [9] McGoldrick, Dominic. Canadian Indians, Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Jul., 1991), pp. 667.
  • [10] Heilman, ME (2004). “Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks”. Journal of applied psychology (0021-9010), 89 (3), p. 416.
  • [11] Grutter v Bollinger 2003: accessed 18.03.09: http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./539/306/
  • [12] General Assembly Resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965, Article 1 ( 4). A. H. E. Morawa, “The Concept of Non-Discrimination: An Introductory Comment”, Journal of Ethnic and Minority Issues in Europe, 3, 2002, p. 9.
  • [13] Text of California Proposition 2009: http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/BP/209text.htm
  • [14] In addition, the point at which disadvantaged groups are over represented would lead to a backlash.
  • [15] Morowa, p. 11.
  • [16] Ibid, p. 10.
  • [17] Modood, p. 77.
  • [18] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom: accessed 18.03.09: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
  • [19] Grutter v Bollinger 2003: accessed 18.03.09: http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./539/306/
  • [20] Professor Jackson-Preece: “Irish Rise in America.” EU458: Seminar 15.03.09
Politics

Brainwashed Internalised Control – Syria and North Korea

Leave a comment

(Wedeen, 1998) Why Syria (pre-Arab Spring) relied on a politics of “As If” instead of a politics of “Belief” & How North Koreans are similarly brainwashed.

Today, a dictator has died; Kim John Il. Public weeping has been reported, which is the strongest evidence of Internalised Control ever witnessed. No democratic state could produce such scenes of weeping, not even after Princess Diana’s death….

(Wedeen, 1998) examines a Syrian case study where the link between obedience and belief are broken. Wedeen argues that the lack of belief in authority is what makes the regime so powerful. Indeed, obedience is more powerful if it is external and does not accompany belief. In other words, it’s better that people do not really believe, but pretend to believe in their dictators.

INTRODUCTION STORY: Syrian soldiers (pre-Arab Spring) are lined-up daily and asked to each explain how amazing Asad is in their opinion. They are to associate Assad with sunrises, and beautiful flowers, and they are to proclaim their platonic love for Assad in front of each other, according to Wedeen’s article. Anyone who fails to give flowering praise is removed, or beaten.

  • This story represents an important feature of Syrian life, which is the regime’s demand that people provide external evidence of their allegiance to the regime and the personality Cult of Asad.
  • These externally demonstrated rituals are often transparently phoney.
  • They draw upon repetition of the rhetoric that the cult and the regime has generated -> this rhetoric exists to produce the legitimacy and hegemony of the regime. -> rhetoric is not meant to be believed and as a rule, it is not. -> but – soldiers have to act ‘as if’ they do believe in it.

Political Power and the Politics of “As If”

  • Wedeen’s article is trying to understand the nature of authoritative power and demonstrating how language and symbols emerging from within such a culture produces political power.
  • It is clear that the soldiers do not have patriotic dreams. Nevertheless, they have to act “as if” they do. That the state can intrude into the most private and inaccessible parts of themselves and control that within them they cannot control.
  • The State does not demand that they have patriotic dreams but that the soldiers externally expressed their dreams using the set of establish images and popular illusions produced by the state.
  • The soldiers are in control of the dream only in sofar as they deliver what is required.-> part of the politics of “As IF” is publicly sharing these formula of false obedience.

The Politics of “As IF’ is used instead of real loyalty: the only real obedience is an external one – obedience derived from conviction/believe is not real because it is mediated through our subjectivity. In this way, we do not obey the ruler but our own judgement.-> Power is when the state or authority can force people to participate in a cult or watch it complicity (impose on them the ‘fictions’ of the state).

Real Obedience:

  • The regimes ability to sustain its fictions relies on not believing and a self-conscious submission to authority (no emotional connection) through outward obedience.
  • The Principle of Social Auto-Totality: is the belief that one should do things to get on in life -> people enforce others’ obedience without believing in what they do. -> pressure from others to take part in the norm.
  • The System is self-enforcing, partically because people become accustomed to it. People become agents of the system.
  • They have internalized the control. Automism: performace of action without conscious though or intention.-> perpetuate it without conscious thought. Auto-totality: self-direct system that is not imposed by one group on another but permeates the whole society.-> this system automatically generates the power of the state.
  • The people confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system and they are the system.-> why complicity matters, as does obedience.

Citizens In the Politics of “As If”

  • Everyone becomes or is a victim of this system because they do not believe in it but nonetheless reinforce it and perpetuate it.
  • Political systems in these state are defined by, reliance on and functionally inseparable from citizen’s habitual obedience to it.-> This internalization of control frees the state of accountability and it renders the citizens ability to represent himself as a ‘victim’ inadequate.
  • Rorty: make people say something they don’t believe separates the individual from their sense of self and recreates belief. -> regime expands into the realm of the personal and demonstrates the regime’s power over the person.

Political Consequences:

  • This kind of obedience Creates a system reliant on passive compliance (either as a complicit spectator or an a complicit partipatent)
  • Everyone is at once a victim and supporter of the system.
  • Identifies disobedience –defines terms of membership to the state and puts forth guidelines for politically acceptable speech/behaviour -> regulates conduct.

PROBLEMS THE POLITICAL ‘AS IF”

  • Reminds soldiers that they are at odds with the regim because of a gap between performance and belief.  This gap affirms the regime’s power.
  • Regime is reliant on people.
  • The regime cannot evaluate real public sentient because force people to keep rebellious thoughts private.
  • Complicity can become an opportunity for mockery or rebellion -> invites subversive moments. -> the use of the same symbols to subvert the state. Any other epistemic system would not have been as rhetorically effective.
  • Tries to understand the nature of authoritatian power and demonstrate how language and symbols produce political power when there is an absence of belief -> use of symbols -. Obedience -. Depoliticized-> compliance is habitual & self-reinforcing: The State creates a web of meaning that everyone participates in. Society has an alternative web of meaning rooted in the disbelief of that web.

Politics

About Internet Mobilisation – Manuel Castells on Social Movements in 2011 and Beyond

Leave a comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Castells This London School of Economics lecture details insights into the sociological consequences of internet technology on protest movements, political contestation, and the shift of power through greater interconnectedness. Castells explores the causes, and viral mobilisation in Tunisia, and Eqypt, and speculates about the Jasmine Revolution in China, as well as discussing the outcomes of the Occupy Wall Street movement from his perspective.

Business, Politics

Principles for Choosing the Company Your Work For: Warren Buffett

Leave a comment

The Insights of Warren BuffettThere are Five Segments to Warren Buffett’s Management Principles:

  1. Pick the right business: own, manage, or work for the right business, you need to work for the one with the best economics.
  2. Delegate authority: learn how to give up control safely.
  3. Find a manager with the right qualities: integrity, intelligent, and a passion for the business. You need to cultivate this in yourself, and in the right candidates.
  4. Motivate your work force: you need to motivate your managers so that they are all that they can be within your company.
  5. Learn the managerial axioms for different problems: there are axioms for handling dishonest employees, and keeping costs low.

1. How to Find the Kind of Business that Offers the Greatest Career Opportunities: you need to pick the right business to be part of, and work for. You could have a life of drudgery, or success depending on this crucial choice. Certain kinds of companies that have inherent value will not even need a good manager to be successful. There are number of characteristics that identify these businesses.

There is a big difference between a business that can bootstrap, and those that cannot.* The best businesses are those that have a key service or a strong brand name product that never has to change; there is no R&D, and no retooling of the plant for design changes. The capital needed for growth can be used over the year, all the money that it saves is easy money that doesn’t need to be invested in innovation. The capital needed for growth is internal, thus making the managers look great.

Coca-Cola Has A Strong Competitive AdvantageFor example, Coca-Cola doesn’t have to redesign its product, so they can spend time to pay big bonuses, and buying other companies. General Motors on the other hand, produces automobiles and have to spend billions on new designs, and therefore needs to compete with Toyota et al. So, which one would you work for? The one that is producing excess cash or the one that is internally burning its funds on R&D? Excess cash makes management look good. Getting paid more money is always good.

*Remember that Warren Buffet hates technology companies.

Competitive Advantage: the company that is best is that one that has a lock down on its competitive landscape. These companies never really change, and are easy to sell. This equates to higher profit margins, and they are awash with cash. You need to have a durable competitive advantage. There are three kinds of such companies;

1) sell a unique product,

2) sell a unique service,

3) are a low cost buyer or seller of the products that people need daily.

1)    Sell a Unique Product: examples are Coors, Kraft, Coca-Cola, P&G, Philip Morris. Through the process of branding their products, they are what we think of when we buy. Wrigley Gum is another great example. Marlboro cigarettes owns a piece of the consumer’s mind. So these mega brands can also sell higher profits, higher inventory turnover, and therefore these companies are easy to identify because they have strong yearly earnings. These special companies, offer us the opportunity for managerial super-stardom. They also have the money to buy new businesses.

2)    Sell a Unique Service: examples are H&R Block, Amex, Wells-Fargo etc. Like lawyers and doctors, people need these services inevitably, but unlike lawyers and doctors, these companies are institution specific as opposed to people specific. The economics of selling a unique service is that you don’t have to build a production plant. You can also own a piece of the consumers mind. No matter how bad the recession, H&R Block never has much of a slow-down in tax filing business, management does not need to work around union demands, debt, or the buying whims of customers.

3)    Low Cost Buyer: example is Walmart. Instead of big margins, these companies seek out big volume. For a business like this to succeed, you need to have the highest volume, and you need to have the best price in town. The low cost buyer and seller offers the least potential for management and employment opportunities.

If you business doesn’t fit into one of these categories then you are wasting your time.

**Please note that Buffett owns stock in every company mentioned above.

[This is a précis of Warren Buffett’s Management Secrets. More is forthcoming]