Community of Common Concern

One of the (Many) Problems with University

One often hears the sentiment of 

“I have done everything I was supposed to, worked hard, studied hard and got into University. Now I’m stuck in a job with no need for my qualifications, with no foreseeable prospects and with £20,000 to £40,000 in debt” (Graeber 2013)

These concerns are widely heard from students from all demographics, some from middle class families but the majority are from relatively modest homes. They now find themselves leaving University with their lives tied to their debt, which is owed by the same banks that brought the global economy to the brink of collapse, and entering a job market with a scarcity of jobs.

In 2012 there were 9.8 million underemployed workers. Underemployment is defined as “employed only part-time when one needs full-time employment or not making full use of your skills or qualifications”.

Add this to the already high unemployment statistics and one begins to see a worrying but unfortunately entirely predictable phenomenon.

Debt has a huge power over people. Not just in terms of the severe financial difficulties when trying to manage the repayments alongside the rent, bills or other costs but it also has great power due to the intense emotions that it can evoke. The feelings of shame and humiliation, which combined with the accusatory judgements from those observing one’s predicament from a far, can be a depressing mix. The anger bubbling underneath, as they react to being effectively told, “one is a loser in a game that no one forced them to play”

However, students in schools across the Developed world are repeatedly told that University degrees are the only way to ensure that you are not consigned to a life of dishwashing or menial retail work, jobs which are inherently precarious, with little or no benefits, where an unforeseen illness or injury can ruin one’s life and the lives of their families.

This means a large portion of today’s younger generations believe, or believed, that there is no other choice than to pursue higher education to find meaningful work, thus beginning their life as a debtor, which as David Graeber argues “is to be treated as if one has already lost’

The immediate effect of this indebtedness, which is only going to increase after the Coalition’s rise of tuition fees, is to dismantle the most valuable aspect of University life. A four-year period in which students were encouraged to pursue truth, beauty and understanding of the world in a time to meet people from outside your comfort zone, and to be confronted with the complexities and possibilities of life.

Now this has changed. It has been superseded by the logic of the market. Where Universities once regarded the ‘purpose of wealth is to afford one the means to pursue knowledge’, now they have become fixated upon the notion that knowledge is to facilitate the accumulation of wealth.

Students who insist on treating their University as anything but a calculated investment are likely to do so at a huge personal cost.

Scarlett Johansson, SodaStream, And The Lie Of Economic Cooperation In The Occupied Territories

Scarlett Johansson in the SodaStream Ad.
Credit: SodaStream © 2014

I'm sure by now everyone has heard of the Johansson/SodaStream/Oxfam debacle. The actress left her role as an Oxfam Ambassador whilst stating that she supports trade and 'social interaction between a democratic Israel and Palestine'. I think most will see the problem with this statement - Israeli businesses that operate within the illegally occupied territories do not trade 'between' themselves and Palestine. They operate on Palestinian land, and whilst they may benefit the estimated 450 Palestinians who work for them compare this to the 4.5million Palestinians in the occupied territories whose independence is denied and livelihoods destroyed by the development of illegal settlements (and the running of Israeli businesses from them) who do not work for SodaStream. 

I can hear your response "but those 450 have families who benefit too" yet this can't amount to more than another 200-300 people. The long-term damage caused by allowing Israeli, in fact any business from any country operating from illegal settlements outweighs the minimal good that SodaStream alleges to provide. A recent article fromGawker wrote about the reaction of Palestinian workers from the SodaStream plant, a young man is interviewed and he gives a positive response about the company. In fact, his worries about activists attempting to close the factory down are valid - he doesn't want to lose his job and the little security he has. But the problem this article misses is that, whilst SodaStream may pay the few Palestinians that work for them a decent wage, and provide above satisfactory working conditions (I would at this point like to add that out of the estimated 1300 employees 850 of these are in fact Israeli), the vast majority of Palestinians in the occupied territories will not see the benefit.

The article also misses a far more important point. There is an underlying sentiment that comes from Israeli business being built on land that belongs to the Palestinian people, it is subtle and something that can easily be overlooked in the ongoing discussions over legality (the ICJ has given an Advisory Opinion on the legality of settlements on the occupied territories for those that are interested). It is an act of intimidation, it is an act which says "we control you, we control your land." When I visited the West Bank last June it was this sentiment that stayed with me, it was more than just a business on occupied land. It was a statement. It is there as beacon to all those Palestinians who still have some fight left in them that Israel controls them, owns them, deigns to give them a job so they can survive the oppression that the Israeli government forces upon them. That business represents far more than just a job. It is a representation of everything that stands in the way of Palestinian independence. It is well known that development of these settlements is a direct impediment to finding a resolution, less well known is the impact of business and trade operating out of the settlements - you can read the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestine here. 

I saw many examples of intimidation whilst I travelled around the West Bank. I will give one here - I spent a few days in Jerusalem and stayed in a Greek Orthodox Monastery within the Old City next to Jaffa Gate. It was incredibly busy and there were huge light installations and I realised later why that was. It was the Festival of Light. At first glance this seemed pretty innocent, but as I walked around the Old City I started to notice that there were no Palestinians enjoying this festival. It was filled with Israeli's from the surrounding settlements, most of whom are orthodox Jews and dressed in the usual religious attire. For those that haven't been I will explain as to why this was strange. The Old City is part of the OPT. It is home to the vast majority of Palestinians who live in the Jerusalem area which is surrounded by the newer Israeli settlement. This festival was a statement of power, it was put on by the Israeli government to be enjoyed by Israeli's at the expense of the Palestinians who lived there. Not monetary expense, something far more valuable than that. It was at the expense of their personal security, their freedom. It was a mini invasion of their territory, of their homes, and a reminder of who is in control. A reminder that this place that should be safe for them isn't. 

The issue with SodaStream is, by analogy, the same. Innocent at first glance they provide a few jobs and adequate working conditions, yet underneath this facade is a deeper and far more troubling problem. Encouragement of Israeli business from occupied land is detrimental to the overall peace process, and inflicts great psychological suffering upon the vast majority of Palestinians who do not benefit economically from the company. Ms Johansson is suffering from the common syndrome of missing the wood for the trees. Her one tree shows her a company who pays its Palestinian employees equally and has a relatively ok record. But a forest of those trees suddenly becomes intimidating, and those other trees may not have equality on their agenda. By focusing on this one tree we miss the bigger picture of fear mongering, and the limitation of Palestinian people being able to bring opportunity to themselves rather than having to rely on businesses being set up on their own (illegally occupied) land. Fine SodaStream probably isn't a big bad wolf who treats its Palestinian employees like dirt (anyone with further evidence on this company's treatment of its employees I would be very interested to hear so please hit me up with the info!). But SodaStream and Ms Johansson contribute toward a bigger problem (at worst intentionally, and at best unwittingly) supporting an internal power struggle between the Israeli government and the Palestinian people - one which Israel is winning. All Israeli settlements, including the businesses set up on them should be removed. They are illegal under international law, and they will inevitably cause more harm than good. There is no economic cooperation, only intimidation.

What we should be doing is promoting Palestinian business and trade on Palestinian land. An easy example is the olive oil trade in the occupied territories which is a huge source of income for Palestinian farmers and communities - yet the settlements directly inhibit this trade by destroying olive groves. We should be protecting this existing business instead of protecting Israeli companies built on illegally occupied land who provide minimal to no jobs to Palestinians and exacerbate feelings of unrest and instability within the region. Finally we should also be promoting legitimate and legal relations between Palestine and Israel aimed at resolving this devastating and ongoing occupation. 

Political apathy 01

The past couple of months Russell Brand has baffled the British establishment with his call for all people not to vote. Sadly the act of not voting is often misinterpreted as a sign political apathy. I would like to argue the opposite though; in the times we live in it is not the act of not voting but the act voting itself that is a sign of political apathy. It creates a feeling that one has done its democratic duty even though voting is not and has never been the end all of democracy. In fact, voting is only a democratic act if one lives in a true democracy. If one does not the only effect of a vote is that is adds to the legitimacy of an undemocratic system.

We can tell ourselves we live in a democracy however that would be nothing more than a delusion. Political philosopher Sheldon Wolin has accurately described the political system we now find ourselves in as one of ‘inverted totalitarianism’ with a ‘managed democracy’. Corporations through political contributions and lobbying have established themselves as ruling elite of which government acts as servant. These servant governments are legitimated by elections that the ruling elite has learned to control.

This system has created an illusion of democratic choice even though the political parties representing this ‘choice’ only differ in opinion on relatively unimportant details. However, the mainstream media (more often than not owned by members of the ruling elite) presents these minor differences in opinion as if they represent a true democratic debate. In this manner the media performs their job, which is distracting the people from the true issues of our time and legitimizing the current political system.

In the meantime the will of the people is not longer of any true importance to either the ruling elite or their servant government. For example, a couple months ago Cameron has stopped the EU from creating a law that would protect the privacy of the citizens of the EU against corporations like Facebook and Google. It must come as no surprise that UK Prime Minister Cameron gets political advise of executive chairman of Google Eric Schmidt. Please do not be mistaken, it is not just the UK Conservative Party but as good as all political parties within the so called ‘developed world’ who bend to the will of big corporations. The former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, leader of the PVDA (a social-democratic party) and before that leader of the largest Dutch trade union was soon after he ended his political career rewarded with positions on the boards of four large corporations (KLM, TNT, ING and Shell). The question one should ask is what this person did as Prime Minister to deserve this reward. His successor as leader of the PVDA now enjoys a position at another large corporation (KPMG). On the situation in the United States with the bribes called campaign contributions I will not waste any words. Politicians are made aware that as long as they act in the interest of large corporations during their time as ‘representatives of the people’ they can expect a nice job once they end their political career.

As long as politicians are not motivated in their actions by the will of the voters the act of voting itself has very little to do with performing an democratic duty. Only when the ruling elite will be made to fear the people they rule over their servant government will start acting out the will of the people. Therefore, a revolution (in the form of mass civil disobedience) is needed to create a political system in which the act of voting is an act of democracy. As long as the power of large corporations has not been submitted to any reins democracy will not exist. As long as democracy does not exist each individual vote is adding to the legitimacy of an undemocratic system. It is time for people to stop making the passive choice of voting and start making the active choice not to vote and truly become democratically active.

Posted by John Dylan van Houcke at 14:16 No comments: 

http://communityofcommonconcern.blogspot.nl