I watched this creepy documentary last night called The Corporation. Despite the fact that it made me want to move to a socialist country and start growing hemp, I think it was pretty well done. It was definitely educational. I realized that I have only worked for corporations since returning to the U.S. from Sweden. It was one of those realizations where I was like, "Wow, corporations, they are terrible and those people that work for them--how can they be so greedy?" but then I caught myself, "Hey, wait a minute! I'm one of those people and I'm not that greedy (i hope). I even liked that documentary!"
That mental hiccup reminded me of one of Chomsky's comments in this film, which was that the corporation itself is the monstrosity, not necessarily the individuals that run it or work for it. In fact, he said, the people who run the corporation may be really nice guys who are sincere about doing the right thing. His point was that the corporation itself was monstrous, so the offices those people occupy are necessarily part of the monster. Thinking of it that way was a new insight for me. Even when I don't agree with Chomsky, I like listening to him. Very articulate ... and clever.
April 27th, 2005 at 01:55 AM I've watched it twice now and it really sinks in the second time. Another really good watch I recently had was "The Century of the Self." If you can track it down, watch it. If not, I can upload it.
April 27th, 2005 at 03:44 AM What Chomsky is really saying if you read between the lines is, "Come work with Bob, Joe, and Jeff."
August 15th, 2005 at 06:10 AM While there certainly is a ring of truth and plausibility to the concept of the corporate "thing" as a collective entity seperate from the individuals that compose it -- I question if we can really apply this across the board in ethics (including, of course, our frustrations with big, bad corporations). Let me give another example where I think we can see the tension in this: war. In traditional Just War Theory developed out of its Augustinian roots, the final use of consequentialist (if not outright utilitarian) compromise relies upon a seperation between the government and the individuals that compose it (similiar to this Chomskian divide between the corporation and the individual employees of it). In JWT the ethicist is arguing that while the individual is morally bound by non-violent commitments (turn the other cheek, love your enemies, lay down your life, etc.), the government is bound by different rules which hinge on the "common good" (which is somehow different, and you see the early roots of utilitarianism). So you have private vs. public ethics -- arguing that the sermon on the mount was intended as ethicial discourse for the individual but not for the group. Thus, it would be wrong for you (as an individual) to go out and kill an intruder who broke into your house and murdered your wife, but it would not be wrong for you to call the police, have him go to trial, and be killed through capital punishment (so the argument goes -- and that death would justified). Why was it wrong for you to kill him (private ethical rule) and not wrong for the government to kill him (public ethical rule)? Because of this supposed distinction between individual and corporate. In war it goes like this as the classic explanation of why the soldier in battle is not commiting murder when he kills an enemy combatant. If he were to go and hunt down an enemy on his own, representing himself, he would be commiting murder (and violating his own private, individual ethical commitments). But as a soldier he is not himself, in a sense, he is instead a representative or instrument of the larger corporate government. And therefore it is the government killing (justly) the enemy combatant. In the example above of the intruder, the executioner who pulls the switch on the electric chair would similiarly not be commiting murder because it would not be him who was doing it, in a sense, but instead the government is doing it (and therefore justly) and the executioner is merely an instrument or representative of the government. Ok, if you buy all of this then you probably buy into Chomsky's distinction between the individual employee and the corporation. But, if you can't tell, I have my reservations about such a distinction working (as many ethicists, Christian and non, do). Is there really some big disembodied "thing" called the government doing the killing, etc. that is somehow justified under government/public use? I've never met this thing called government. I've never shook its hand. I've never seen it. I've seen a lot of individual people, however, who comprise the nonspatiotemporal CONCEPT we call the government. It certainly SEEMS that it is individuals (not some magical thing called the governemtn) that carry out the work. Or, to put it back to the corporation discussion, is there really such a thing as the big machine of the corporation? Perhaps there is... but it certainly SEEMS that individual employees are still the ones who carry out the acts. There is a tension -- this is not easy. Perhaps the distinction between individual and corporate entity works. But if it does, be prepared to use it across ethical questions. You are the man Doug -- nice blog.