Capricancerous t1_j3mzuet wrote
Reply to comment by VersaceEauFraiche in Violence and force: “Camus and Sartre are paradoxically inseparable because they are opposites in this most central and binding debate on racism and all kinds of social oppression.” by IAI_Admin
The reason those firms adopted such stances is because of cooption and recuperation. Such recuperative action is good for business and bad for subversive politics. It's the same false shrouding in rainbow you see by big business as well. It's all recuperative.
>In the sociological sense, recuperation is the process by which politically radical ideas and images are twisted, co-opted, absorbed, defused, incorporated, annexed or commodified within media culture and bourgeois society, and thus become interpreted through a neutralized, innocuous or more socially conventional perspective. More broadly, it may refer to the cultural appropriation of any subversive symbols or ideas by mainstream culture.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j3n1rf1 wrote
Yes, I am privy to Mark Fisher and how capitalism commercializes the dissent of capitalism. But this neglects possibility that there are true believers of such ideology at the helm of these businesses, or the decision-makers of such businesses feel compelled (or pressured) internally to make outward professions of said ideology either through personal statements themselves or through PR and advertisement, or even that some people within businesses use this ideology in subterfuge against competitors within the business.
iambingalls t1_j3n40lo wrote
All of those possibilities listed would be subordinate to the prime directive of profit. Corporations are not moral entities, they are designed to make a profit for the shareholders and everything else is beholden to that aim.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j3n67xq wrote
I was talking about the people within these organizations that make decisions about marketing and PR on behalf of the whole organization. You're right that corporations are not moral entities, but people are, and corporations are full of people and the entities that make decisions within corporations on the behalf of corporations are people. None of these business decisions (PR, advertisement, hiring decisions) are metaphysically neutral.
If all the efforts of a corporation is done in pursuit of profit, and the majority of Fortune 500 companies put out this kind of advertisement (BLM, anti-racist, female empowerment, etc), then it follows that such endeavors are profitable, that a sufficient number of people support such things, and my assertion in my original post that our society isn't a New Jim Crow follows.
nhowlett t1_j3nklu4 wrote
As a shareholder with reporting requirements for multiple corporations, I resent the insinuation that nothing moral prevails in the decision making process of such an entity. Corporations are like countries - a bit of legal fiction with, perhaps, sane, honourable governance, or else maybe with a madman at the helm. I wouldn't toss that at the feet of the idea of the Nation State, I'd be inclined to indict the leader in question.
[deleted] t1_j3nvxrh wrote
[removed]
amitym t1_j3nnivt wrote
There's another possibility, which is that acquiescence by the private corporation or the cultural mainstream simply represents actual political success. Superficial expression of the "ideas and images" is a form of tribute paid to a victorious political power. Like the banners of subjugated peoples paraded by imperial conquerers.
Yes, like the conquered imperial subject, the restive corporation may remain forever ready to abandon its display of subordination at the first opportunity, its acquiescence is never wholly sincere... but so what? In a sense, all that means is that regular display rituals are proof to an even greater degree of the dynamism of the emerging victorious political force. It commands this power each time anew.
gortlank t1_j3o0uc4 wrote
It costs them nothing to convey a popular message while conceding nothing beyond words. Because that’s all it is. Words. They haven’t been “conquered” any more than I’ve conquered my bank when they tell me they appreciate my business.
Some within the company my see it as a cynical opportunity to garner good PR. Others may truly believe the message. The fact is the reasoning is wholly immaterial as it has no actual impact on real world outcomes either way.
The same goes for politicians. Plenty of them mouth the pieties expected by their base, while taking actions diametrically opposed to those pieties. Only a rube takes their words at face value.
bildramer t1_j3rmawi wrote
It costs them a lot to pay for HR departments, which then discriminate in an "anti-racist" way instead of hiring fairly, cause PR fiascos, waste time with DEI meetings, add various other frictions to a business. The problem is that they're effectively mandated by the government.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments