Monthly Archives: March 2016

Austin Draft- Introduction, Part I, some random other paragraphs and points

Posted on by
4

Austin

PPE499

March 18

Introduction:

Quoting Veblen, the great Evolutionary Economist Warren J. Samuels wrote that “the history of the [economic] science ‘shows a long and devious course of disintegrating animism’”– Today, this statement holds true, thanks in large part to the efforts of Veblen himself. When he first penned his Theory of the Leisure Class, however, that was hardly the case. Only very recently had the Darwinian contingent attacked teleological thinking in the social sciences. A generation prior, economic science was dominated by Marx’s laws of motion– the most sophisticated animistic approach to economic progress the world will ever see. Their efforts had been successful, obviously, but not as much so as Veblen might have wanted. Not until a generation after Veblen’s death in 1929 would Alexandre Koyre and Thomas Kuhn do away with the need for teleology in the natural sciences, but, as Samuels points out (p. 78), in economics and other social sciences, such preconceptions could never be completely eliminated. Until now.

This paper reconceptualizes the field of Institutional Economics not only as a paradigm within economics but as a completely realized paradigmatic science. In place of the Darwinian selection and complexity model which underpinned Original Institutional Economics (OIE), this account will use the revolutionary Revolutionary Model of the scientific process, both its original form in Kuhn’s Structure of the Scientific Revolutions and Stephen J. Gould’s punctuated equilibrium derivation. In effect, my project is to continue the work of Gould’s “contemporary science”, which had “massively substituted notions of indeterminacy, historical contingency, chaos and punctuation for previous convictions about gradual, progressive, predictable determinism.” and extend it to the realm of heterodox economics. Such a project will ultimately tie Institutional Economics more closely to its scientific background, and make it a more powerful tool for understanding social and economic phenomena.

Part one of this paper will summarize the Institutional Economics, investigating its origins and the history of the field thus far. In particular, the notion of a societal institution will be explained using the work of Samuels, Hodgeson, and Parada. Part two will then define and explore Evolutionary Science and Revolutionary Science, detailing the roles that each plays in the theory of Institutional Economics, and, critically, introducing the notions of Exemplars and Paradigms from the work of Kuhn. Part three will then then evaluate the two systems relative to one another, using the escape from animism as one key example of the potential of this new understanding. At our conclusion will be an unignorable call to realize Institutional Economics’ full potential as not only a paradigm within the economic field, but as a paradigmatic science into and of itself.

Part One:

Evolutionary Theory may well be one of the most misunderstood concepts in the history of the philosophy of science. To prevent any potential misunderstandings, and perhaps eliminate those that might already exist, let us detail the key points of the theory as we will encounter it in this paper.

By the time Charles Darwin (1809-1882) ever set off to explore the world in 1831, and wound up changing it, scientists and philosophers throughout Europe had been investigating the same topics that his seminal works would later deal with. Most notably, Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1821) had already written extensively on the question of the origin of species. Lamarck theorized that some ineffable germ plasm, transmitted from parents to offspring, was responsible for morphological traits in animals. Before Darwin could assemble his notes into the first draft of the Origin of Species (1858) Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) had already postulated that personality traits in humans could sustain through generations through the germ plasm. Many of the core elements of the theory we now attribute Darwin’s name to, had been discussed long before his contributions would be realized.

When Darwin did publish the Origin, however, those contributions were tremendous. Darwin’s most famous principle is that of Natural Selection—or rather, “survival of the fittest” a maxim coined by the aforementioned Spencer.[1] The principle was founded on an elegant series of observations: An individual best equipped to deal with its environment was most likely to survive, and an individual best equipped to breed was most likely to breed. Natural selection provided an overarching structure and function to the nascent evolutionary theory that was alive in Europe at the time, and was readily consumed by an intellectual community eager to discuss and debate the points it raised, sparking transcontinental controversies and leaving an indelible mark on the philosophy of science.

Some of those controversies are important to the present topic. The question of determinacy pervaded much of the debate around evolution. Darwin never resolved whether or not idealized forms of a given species existed. Many philosophers and biologists[2] believed that a perfect form of any given species must exist or have previously existed, and that every individual was, in fact, striving to replicate its form. This idealized form of the species, or bauplan, was a welcome remove for many Victorian thinkers from the chaotic and indeterminate consequences of accepting Darwinian principles. As Veblen opined above, the teleological foundations of science were disintegrating in these days, and to many, that change was passionately resisted.

A further debate sparked by Darwin’s work was that of purposiveness. Lamarckians maintained that evolution by natural selection could occur, but that the differentiation in traits occurred only because of the unique wills and efforts of the individual. Lamarck’s famous example is that the wild giraffe developed a long neck after generations and generations of short necked-giraffes stretching to reach the leaves of the tallest trees, each giving birth to a successive generation of slightly longer necked giraffes. For the Darwinians, this question would remain unresolved until the work of Mendel would be rediscovered in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, and the idea of mutations could be fully articulated—bear in mind, gene theory as we know it today was still decades away at the time. These controversies, though seemingly easy to resolve given our modern understanding of biology and the other natural sciences, caused deep confusion for the prominent theorists of the time, and inexorably shaped the development of science at large for years to come.

One issue that was, perhaps surprisingly, not as contentious was that of whether or not the principles of natural selection held value in other sciences. We’ve already seen some of how Herbert Spencer appropriated the Darwinian ideas to social sciences, and though that was of tremendous influence, it pales in comparison to the philosophies of Charles Sanders Peirce (Dates) and William James (Dates) in America, where, without much competition from traditional academic and intellectual spheres, great and very rapid developments would be made over the coming century. For these theorists, there was never much of a question whether or not to embrace “social Darwinism” but only how to embrace and understand it more fully. Which, for better or worse, many great minds set out to find. Thanks to their contributions, natural selection became not only a theoretical framework for understanding the biological sciences, but age old disciplines of ethics and history, as well as budding fields like sociology and psychology. This would pave the way for the contributions of economic critics like Veblen at the end of the Nineteenth Century.

Perhaps most important, to Veblen in particular, was the work of Welsh Psychologist, C. Lloyd Morgan (Dates). Morgan, owner of the most resplendent beard of the very beard-friendly era, and of Morgan’s Cannon, the behavioralist axiom for understanding mental faculties in animals, appears to have dramatically influenced Veblen’s thinking in the early Twentieth Century. Morgan was among the first to conceptualize the social world as an entity capable of evolving in the same way species could, per the Darwinian system. His assertion that changes accumulated in “the written record, in social traditions, and in the manifold inventions” of a society in the same way they could accumulate in the morphological structures of a living organism. With this understanding of processual and cumulative social change, Morgan identified the social world as an emergent phenomenon, and laid the way for the like-named emergence theory that will maintain an interesting relationship with the Institutional Economics we investigate later in this paper.

Before we look into advanced economic thought, however, we should investigate more thoroughly the recent developments to evolutionary theory, to understand how it is applied in an Institutional Economic context. The key principle of modern evolutionary theory is summarized as “new naturalism”.[3] This is the idea that the potential for change is naturally contained within everything, and that changes will occur through natural processes. The inspiration is still the biological sciences, where the principles of variation and mutation remain present within organisms no matter how great or how little change those organisms experience. When we apply this naturalistic principle to scientific ideas, we see a system of naturally occurring phenomena—scientific theories, all of similar collections of component parts, called tokens—that all necessarily contain a certain propensity for change. The mechanism for this change is still, like it was in the biological sciences, acceptance or rejection, but now the fitness of an individual is measured not strictly by its likelihood to reproduce, but by human rationality and scientific critiques. At first glance, this idea is conducive to the widely held belief of many scientists that scientific progress is a naturally occurring phenomenon, because selection of theories is a uniform procedure. We constantly invent new, falsifiable, theories, and only accept those that survive rational, empirical criticism. While this view—known as internalism—is certainly the case in some rare, limited instances, theorists like Griere, Bourdieu, Hull, and Gould are quick to point out that there are other selection mechanisms in the scientific process.[4] Extrinsic social factors can variously play roles in the development of any scientific theory, and can significantly impact the acceptance or rejection of that theory within the scientific community. Because these factors are all external to the process of science itself, this view would be called externalism. The position of institutional economics on the spectrum between internalism and externalism will be of great importance to us in assessing the developments of that field. First though, let us look at the basics.

Economics, for our purpose, is the study of choices and consequences. It takes as its fundamental assumption the fact that no one can have or do everything, and that we thus are forced to value some things more than others, and choose between given options. Traditional economics took as its subject matter the choices and consequences of individuals, and held as its core assumption that people behaved according a rational desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Original Institutional Economics (OIE) looks at the patterns of individual actors—be they rational or otherwise—and recognizes a different level of social functions emerging from those behaviors. These emergent phenomena are called institutions.[5] [6]

Institutional Economics is then able to categorize the functions of these patterns in a scientific way, using them to explain, relate, and predict successively more complex phenomena. To clarify how this works, look at some of the most basic institutions of human behavior and compare their relationships to the more complex institutions. The basic family unit, parents and children, is about the most ubiquitous pattern of human behavior you can find. Buying as opposed to renting homes are likewise common behavioral patterns. Predicting the patterns then of family units buying or renting homes would be a project for an institutional economist. With a theory of family-unit home ownership in play, one could then investigate the propensity for family units who own homes to also own small businesses, and then for family units owning homes and small business to respond to a tax hike in a given way, and so on and so on. In this way, it becomes apparent that Institutional Economics is not only typified by the potential for limitless complexity, any achievements the field has had, or can had, have been inspired by the assumption that complexity must and will continue.

It is also apparent, now, that the development of these institutions—or societal systems– is in many ways analogous to the evolutionary development of biological systems. Veblen took the Darwinism of Spencer, Lloyd and others as the model for the procurement of a given pattern. In a given society, the greater a behavior’s chance of accomplishing its ends and sustaining like behavior, the more likely it would be to remain present in society. Thus, successively more and better fit behaviors maintain a presence in society, those that are ill-fitted and unlikely to sustain themselves are eliminated. After any given behavior has been seen to exist in a more or less unchanged fashion, it can be called an institution, such is the case with large social patterns like commerce, education, or with nuanced cognitive patterns such as the belief in zero-sum interactions or the value of investment. The great contribution of Original Institutional Economics was to denote the successes and failures of orthodox economic theories in systematizing these patterns. In the next section, we will examine the growing differences between Institutional Economics, the heterodox economic systems it overlaps with, and the mainstream neoliberal paradigm.

Jump ahead a few sections; here’s a section of a body paragraph

Hull (1988, pp. 357) maintains this conception of spontaneous order, but refutes the rote model of emergence of early economic theorists. For Hull, emergent patterns exist, but because those emergent patterns tend toward adaptation, rather than static equilibrium, it cannot be seen as a simple invisible hand guiding the entirety of behavior in the system. This is especially true in that the site of change is often particularly isolated, usually to a small community of scientists, giving us the very notion of orthodoxy and heterodoxy (1988, pp. 361). This is exactly the fear of Parada, (2001) who worries of the Institutionalist Paradigm being seen as the achievement of a “sect” rather than a “school” of heterodox economists. Upon reflection, though, should we aspire to be seen as a school? The very word implies a fixed position. Schools tend to be built in place, unwilling and unable to change in a dynamic environment. If, as Hull and Gould would have it, the historical and social functions of a paradigm are better described as a “conceptual lineage”, Parada can rest easy. A lineage is actually no more than a successive string of generations, each at least tangentially related to each other (the reduction as absurdum associated with this view is not lost on Gould, 2002, pp. 8). Thus the project of Institutional Economics need not be to legitimate their views into some static paradigm to rival any other in the given ideological environment, but to simply continue selecting and rejecting intellectual tokens with a changing ideological environment. If the emergent theory at the core of the paradigm holds true, changes will occur as necessary and continually form successively more and better adapted systems.

The rest of the paper is going to be about this stuff:

  • What is Revolutionary Science and how can NIE draw on it?
    • Summary Kuhn
      • Paradigm, Exemplar, Paradigm Shift
      • Incommensurability
      • Indeterminacy- The nail in the coffin for animism
    • Development of Gould, etc.
      • Punctuated Equilibrium, dynamism vs gradualism
  • Gradualism is lame. PE is where it’s at.
    • But resistance is expected, if futile
      • You’ll have your day, Popper. (eventually, we gotta throw out those BS orthodox economics)
  • Trying to make you science predictive is stupid
    • Explanation is the best you’re gonna do, Hull gets it.
  • Why try to be cumulative?
    • A healthy dose of relativism will be good for you.

[1] Spencer, 1864, Principles of Biology, Vol. I. pp. 444: available at: https://archive.org/stream/principlesbiolo05spengoog#page/n460/mode/2up

[2] A short list of the many idealists who variously engaged with Darwinian ideas (largely in antagonistic fashion) includes Roget (1779-1869), Whewell (1794-1869), the “absolutely absurd” Forbes (1815-1854) and the greatest rival to the Darwin and his band of colleagues, Sir Richard Owen (1804-1892)

[3] Hull. 1988. Science as a Process. pp. 3

[4] Hull. 1988. Pp. 2, 15-16.

[5] For the most accessible introduction to this concept of society in OIE, see Parada, 2001. Original Institutional Economics and Parada, 2002. Original Institutional Economics and New Institutional Economics

[6] To see the Veblenian origins of this concept, Hodgeson “Veblen and Evolutionary Economics” in Samuels, ed., 2002, The Founding of Evolutionary Economics.

Working Draft

Posted on by
4

Abstract

Operating under and implementing the theoretical frameworks of neoliberalism and the Treadmill of Production (ToP) theory, this paper will unveil what embodies and defines consumer culture in the United States as well as what permits and perpetuates consumer behavior. Consumer behavior today established over time due to a host of institutions and development thereof. This paper will examine specifically how politics, economics, the fashion industry, media, and advertising encourage the continuation of elaborate and excessive consumption in the United States. Through the implementation of the work of Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen and Pierre Bourdieu, and their respective concepts of commodity fetishism, ideology or false consciousness, conspicuous consumption and cultural capital, this paper will argue that consumers buy because they seek to fulfill a sense of pleasure as well as to craft their ideal version of self, which often revolves around competition to convey status and power. This paper will provide a critique on the impact of consumption, driven by individualism, on the environment, suggesting that the status quo of consumption simply is not viable.

Introduction

Humans need to consume to survive. It is a matter of fact, both biologically and psychologically, that humans need to consume, at least to a degree, for survival. Psychologically, Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs which include physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualization needs(Eisenberg, 2009;Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html). Physiological needs are of primary importance for functioning as a human being and require people to purchase or consume food, water, shelter and clothing. The progression of needs also forces people to attain security, social relationships and consume additional goods and services. Maslow’s hierarchy was expanded on to include three other stages, but most important for this paper is the addition of aesthetic needs or a search for beauty, which too undoubtedly demands consumption (http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html).

Sociologist Karl Marx suggests that humans are distinguishable within the animal kingdom from any other species because humans are the only species that not only have the capability of, but also enact the alteration of nature (Seidman, 2013). In some instances, what once qualified as a need categorically speaking, such as clothing, has been elaborately reinvented to sky-rocket prices. On the contrary, what are foolishly excessive wants to many, and even most, have become every day needs for some. The respective definitions of needs and wants have become entirely subjective to the extent that they are sometimes used interchangeably. Objectively speaking though, both are dictated by economic resources and the ability to buy, including even the most basic of needs. However, this has not always been the case.

Between wants and needs, people in the United States spent $11,044,057 per capita on personal consumption expenditures in 2014, an increase of 4.2 percent from 2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/pce/2015/pdf/pce1215.pdf). Comparatively, people in the United States spend between three and four times more than people in any other country, most closely followed by China, at $3,954,283 per capita (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.PRVT.CD/countries/1W?display=default). Excessive consumption translates to excessive resource extraction and excessive waste, both of which contribute to the current environmental state of degradation and destruction. All things considered, why do people continue to consume in such excessive amounts?

Through content analysis and the implementation of neoliberalism and the Treadmill of Production theory (ToP) as theoretical frameworks, this paper will address the looming question of what stimulates consumption. The literature review will elaborate on contributions of the industrial revolution, neoliberalism and capitalism as agents that each thrusted the growth of consumption. In addition, examinations and explanations of consumer behavior from Zygmunt Bauman, Colin Campbell, Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood, Daniel Miller, Jean Baudrillard, Thorstein Veblen and Pierre Bourdieu will be discussed. Thereafter, the history and development of consumption will be explored, as well as how institutions influence and socialize people to buy into the system, followed by the integration of concepts from Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen and Pierre Bourdieu. Lastly, consumption will be critiqued as a social and environmental problem.

Research Question and Hypothesis

This paper seeks to address the question, “What drives consumption and consumer behavior in the United States in the 21st century?” The primary hypothesis for this paper is that consumers buy not only because social institutions instill a sense of need rather than want, but also because consumers seek to fulfill a sense of pleasure as well as to craft their ideal version of self, largely by conveying economic and social status and power.

A sociological analysis of consumption patterns and trends is necessary given the lack of research on the topic, at least within the discipline of sociology, as well as the impact on the environment. Well known sociologists, such as Marx, Veblen and Bourdieu have posited strong explanations for consumer behavior and implications thereof, yet there has been little to integration of approaches. Furthermore, a select number of environmental sociologists, Gould, Pellow and Schnaiberg, have focused their works on consumption, but once again there lacks an integrative and comprehensive critique of consumption as a social problem. Taken together, consumption has been understudied from a sociological approach, despite the very real and profound influence on the environment, but society as a whole as well. It is the hope that the findings of this research not only shed light on the false consciousness, commodity fetishism and conspicuous consumption that drive consumer behavior, but also to create behavioral changes that constrain consumption patterns.

Methodology

Content analysis will be implemented as the method of research for this critique of consumption. This research method was chosen given the number of strengths it offers for a topic of this nature. Content analysis allows for a breadth of sources and information to be considered. More precisely, the inclusion of historical data and the documented development and growth of consumption as well as influencing agents and factors enriches the depth of the research. Additionally, content analysis greatly enhances the analysis of the intentions and impact of media, advertising and fashion as influencing institutions on consumer behavior.

Content analysis will be implemented in partnership with neoliberalism and the ToP as theoretical frameworks to critique consumption. Economic neoliberalism gained popularity in the 1970s as economic policy principled on a free-market economy with privatization, minimal governmental regulation and the dissolution of public interest (Martinez and Garcia, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376 ). Consequently, great promotion of individualism and freedom of choice flooded mainstream American culture. The Treadmill of Production Theory, developed by Allan Schaniberg, claims that being a part of a larger system such as capitalism which demands continuous and expansive growth is detrimental to the environment (Gould, Pellow and Schnaiberg, 2008). The continuation of corporations placing exceedingly exponential demands on the environment at the current rate of operation has and continues to far surpass the finite capacity of the planet. The perpetuation of both states of being, neoliberalism and Treadmill of Production, not only creates, but maintains the role of the consumer in advancing economic, environmental and social problems.

Literature Review

Sociologist George Ritzer defines America as a society of hyper-consumption because Americans consume more, at a higher degree, than essentially anywhere else in the world (Perez and Esposito, 2010). Within academia, consumption has been defined explained metaphorically in a variety of different ways, often depending on time, place and discipline of the theorist. Herbert Marcuse conceptualizes consumption as an addiction in which once people enter the vicious cycle that originated on grounds of desire, they continue in order to maintain their high, falling even further into the grasp of capitalism and overconsumption (Perez and Esposito, 2010; Sassatelli, 2007). Despite the fact that happiness and consumption share no direct correlation, that does not mean that attitude or addiction behind it ends. Alan Durning suggest that consumption is relative to surroundings and the past and that it needs only to be an excess of those measures, while Julet Schor aligns with theory that consumption is dictated by competition and the acquisition of being the best (Perez and Esposito, 2010). Frank Trentmann on the other hand, discusses the label of consumer as a “master category of collective and individual identity” (Lury, 2011,9). Other popular interpretations of consumer behavior originate from Marx, Bauman, Campbell, Douglas and Isherwood, Miller, Baudrillard, Veblen and Bourdieu.

Karl Marx: Capitalism

Karl Marx, a well-known sociologist, focused his work on illuminating the contradictions of capitalism and the human connection to the economic system (Allan, 2011; Corrigan, 1997; Seidman, 2013). Marx contended so far as to say that human nature and societal development were directly and inexplicably predicated by economics, and more specifically the process of production and consumption. He also contended that capitalism created an ideology or false consciousness that blinded humans to the dangers of capitalism, which they were continually contributing to and progressing by participating in the very system detrimental to themselves. Again, as the necessity of capitalism is constant growth, Marx explored commodification. He claimed that “commodification translates all human activity and relations into objects that can be bought and sold” (Allan, 2011, 112).

Zygmunt Bauman: Control

Similarly, Zygmunt Bauman, a polish sociologist, too asserted that individuals created social relationships and their connectedness within society through consumption or their identity as a consumer (Bauman, 2002; Patterson, 2008). “To consume . . . means to invest in one’s own social membership, whichin a society of consumers translates as ‘saleability’: obtaining qualities forwhich there is already a market demand” (Patterson, 2008, 469). Moreover, Bauman suggests that the act of consuming grants people a sense of control and security because they can make a simple exchange of money for ownership (Jacobsen and Poder, 2016). Additionally, consumption demands repetitive purchasing to replace out-dated and no longer interesting objects with new and trendy items.

Colin Campbell: Romanticism

Together Marx and Bauman focus on the necessity of accumulation and overproduction within capitalism, but also how strongly people’s sense of self, being and existence is dependent upon their identity as a consumer, and secondarily as a producer within the very same system. Colin Campbell similarly echoed the notion that consumption paralleled existence to the extent that one could not exist without it, but did so from a lens of Romanticism in which Campbell explained the ethic associated with consumption (Corrigan, 1997; Sassatelli, 2007). Campbell linked Romanticism and consumption together through the commonality or central object of both, the self. Romanticism shifted thinking around improvement and individualism as that which could or should be fulfilled through new and various types of gratification, hence consumption. Campbell, however, also differentiated necessity from luxury, noting luxuries as “the way to pleasure rather than mere comfort” (Corrigan, 1997, 15). As such, consumers seek pleasure in their experiences, and in contrast to traditional times, expect pleasure not only in the form of emotion, but also in every experience as opposed to once in awhile. Likewise to Bauman, Campbell came to the conclusion that consumption was a method of control, the emotion consumers were after when buying.

Anthropological Viewpoints

Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood: Social Relationships

On the contrary, Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood, evaluated consumption and argued the purpose of which was two-fold, to establish and preserve social relationships and social connectedness and to distinguish “visible and stable cultural categories” (Corrigan, 1997, 18) . Douglas and Isherwood approached consumption from their anthropology backgrounds by focusing on social meaning and conveyance of culture and agreement or consensus of norms through material goods (Douglas and Isherwood, 2002). For example, buying products for home decoration or gift giving demonstrated what an individual valued, believed to be beautiful, important or luxurious. Commodities, Douglas and Isherwood claimed, should be viewed as a “nonverbal medium for the human creative faculty” (Douglas and Isherwood, 2002, 71). A common critique of Douglas and Isherwood is the absence of the influence of media, advertisements and institutions within the discourse around determining meaning of objects (Lury, 2011). Instead, Douglas and Isherwood contended that individuals had the freedom to define meaning.

Zoja and McCracken: Consumption as Ritual

Although also implementing an anthropological lens on consumption, Luigi Zoja viewed consumption as “the primary ritual of modern society”, which was an extension of Douglas and Isherwood, but Zoji did not explicitly focus on the ability to define meaning (Perez and Esposito, 2010, 85). Zoja and Douglas and Isherwood both emphasized the importance and prevalence of ritual in society ritual as a means of communicating meaning that stabilizes social relationships, connectedness and inclusion (Corrigan, 1997; Douglas and Isherwood, 2002; Lury, 2011). Three types of ritual discussed by Grant McCracken present within a material society are possession, gift giving and divestment or investment rituals (Lury, 2011). The possession ritual, simplified in one capacity as collecting goods exhibits control of a desired or held in high regard product or idea. Gift giving or the transfer of goods, in effect also equates to the transfer of feeling or emotion. Divestment and investment are respective processes in which a consumer attempts to establish new ownership and control over something previously owned or attempts to disassociate with an object in order to avoid losing any part or sense of self upon its getting rid of.

Daniel Miller: Social World

Daniel Miller too approached consumption from an anthropological vantage point, yet did so by describing five ways in which material goods were embedded within social relationships (Lury, 2011). Miller contests that the five ways in which goods impact relationships are through function, the self, space, time and style. The functionality of objects is essentially the purpose they serve to fulfill or assist in an action. The self or individual identity is constructed of objects that are used to express gender, interests and style. Space is valued due to either the value of the source location or the place that is created or manifests in a given location, while time can convey newness, oldness or a label as an up and coming style or something antique or vintage. Objects are stylized by being compared and contrasted in a similar time and space by similar levels of analysis. Miller specifically emphasizes style because of its inherent ability in the modern world to provide relatability and define identity.

Jean Baudrillard: Consumption as System of Needs

While many view consumption from an individual, interactionist perspectives, Jean Baudrillard takes a systematic, macro-level approach in which he argues that humans have individual agency removed from their grasp, and instead that the system of production, as referred to frequently by Marx, creates the system of needs (Corrigan, 1997; Kellner, 1989; Sassatelli, 2007). However, dissimilarly to Marx, Baudrillard shifts attention away from production of individual items, and instead focuses attention on the sense of need that humans then experience. This need, too, that exists in a consumer society is one that contrary to some arguments, is not innate, as if it were, it would not continually grow. Baudrillard suggests that sense of need or want is a broad sense of need not directly or explicitly per se attached to a singular object or type of object. As such, the desire that exists is not motivated by pleasure, as proposed by Campbell, but as a means to sustain capitalism. Yet, as Douglas and Isherwood maintained, Baudrillard too sold the notion of objects or goods fulfilling a role of communication between individuals, but also as a means of enacting culture. One of the greatest differences though in Baudrillard’s perspective on consumption is that rather than serving as a performance of freedom and individual choice, he counters that the act of consumption and role of the consumer is exploited and dictated by the system of capitalism, similar to Marx belief of production (Corrigan, 1997).

Social Status

Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous Leisure and Consumption

One of the first works on consumption, was Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class, written in 1899 (Corrigan, 1997, Sassatelli, 2007, Veblen, 1934). Veblen focused on status as wealth and the functioning thereof. He maintained that behavioral demonstration and enactment were necessary to convey one’s wealth, so others would be in the know of their status and could thereby admire and treat superiors with due respect and esteem. Veblen distinguished two primary methods of conveying wealth and status, conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption, the differentiation between being time and goods as means of doing just that (Veblen, 1934). Abstaining from labor associated with production constituted leisure activity. Instead, the wealthy are intended to commit their energy to exuding proper etiquette of a superior class, for example through language. Moreover, the notion of wealth could be furthered by the acquisition of hired help or servants (Corrigan, 1997). Conspicuous consumption on the other hand, referred to the consumption of goods beyond the level necessary for survival, even if that meant becoming an alcoholic. Pierre Bourdieu focused his work on achieving a non-monetary form of currency or distinction through cultural capital.

Pierre Bourdieu: Cultural Capital

Bourdieu believed cultural capital was a different, but supportive type of capital to financial capital that was rooted in educational attainment, so more advanced education was indicative of higher status (Corrigan, 1997; Sassatelli, 2007; Zukin and Smith Maguire, 2004). Bourdieu organized four primary combinations of levels of cultural capital and financial capital, high and low levels of each, in which the people who resided in each category enacted and abided by a certain culture. Bourdieu believed that “each act of consumption reproduces social difference” (Corrigan, 1997, 28). Consumption was indicative of status whether it be to benefit and indicate someone was a member of a wealthy, educated class or serve to disadvantage someone by making apparent that they belonged to a lower class. Objects were organized in a hierarchy so differentiation in class was easily deciphered. However, objects also needed to be fluid and redefined as objects became more easily attainable for individuals outside of the upper class to conform to or enact.

Posted on by
5

***Note: The main headings of the sections will eventually be titled but are being used for me to stay organized when developing my paper. Also, the sections of the body are going to be much more extensive and probably rearranged but as a draft I have been working at different sections as different times when the ideas spark.

———————————————————————————————————————–

Abstract:

 This paper will examine how gender contributes to an individual’s acceptance of their mental illness, specifically depression. Through Erving Goffman’s contributions to Labeling Theory, I will evaluate how one’s gender contributes to their acceptance of not only their mental illness, but possibly their openness to seeking help. In regard to acceptance, stigma is often associated with depression, preventing those experiencing depression from accepting themselves and feeling accepted by others. Stigma impacts an individual’s willingness to try to mask depression or to seek assistance. This paper will then examine the connections between depression, gender, and stigma in hopes of understanding where there may be a gap in the research.

 

Introduction:

 Thesis: Gender differences and the stigma associated with these differences contribute to an individual’s acceptance of and willingness to get help for their mental illness, specifically depression.

Depression has been studied in many forms and throughout many fields of study. It is a complex mental illness that is constantly trying to be understood by researchers and professionals alike. In the field of sociology, Labeling Theory has been used to help understand self-identity. Further research by Erving Goffman looked further into this theory in regards to the idea of stigma and how it can impact one’s self-identity. This research brought me to some of the questions this paper will explore such as; does stigma differ by gender? Does stigma about mental illness affect how someone with depression will see and accept themselves? Does stigma prevent people experiencing depression from seeking professional help or treatment?

For the purposes of this paper it is important to define the terms that will be used as variables in the research. The definition of depression comes from the National Institute of Mental Health and states that “Depression is a common but serious mood disorder. It causes severe symptoms that affect how you feel, think, and handle daily activities, such as sleeping, eating, or working.” Due to the lack of research in terms of those who identify as a non-binary gender, this paper will use the Oxford Dictionary definition on gender which states “The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.” In terms of stigma this paper will discuss stigma in terms of the theoretical definition from Erving Goffman who said that stigma is “an attribute that is deeply discrediting.” This definition of stigma, although broad, is able to encompass the many ways in which stigma may be experience by those who face depression.

 

Literature Review:

 Depression can be very complex to study because it knows no bounds of gender, sex, race, class or other demographics so because of this it can be hard to generalize it within research. According to the World Health Organization depression is the most “debilitating and costly mental illnesses worldwide” (Genuchi & Mitsunaga, 2015). That fact alone demonstrates how important it is to learn more about depression, who it affects and how it affects them. Furthermore, it is important to understand what some of the past research has found as a way to direct this case study.

 Past research on gender and depression:

One researcher found that overall women will experience depression twice as often as men (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). However, another study found that when it comes to depression, males are less likely to receive sympathy from those around them (Wirth & Bodenhausen, 2009). This isn’t that surprising when considering that many times society sees females as more emotional and when males are emotional our society tends to think they shouldn’t show their true feelings. This is a big problem when it comes to depression because there is not a sense of equality for the way depression is handled between males and females.

 Past research on gender and stigma:

 One particular study on this topic focused specifically on teens experiencing stigma and their reactions to it. This is important in understanding that many times stigma will start at an early age. There were three key points to this study, the first one being that teen girls more so than teen boys had a higher likelihood of talking to a friend for help (Chandra & Minkovitz, 2005). However, the boys in the study were more likely to go to someone in their immediate family for help (Chandra &Minkovitz, 2005). Perhaps the most important finding though of this study is that the boys experienced a much higher rate of mental health stigma (Chandra & Minkovitz, 2005). This stigma caused what the study referred to as barriers and had a large impact on whether or not the boys in the study were open and willing to seek either professional help or help from a friend or school staff member (Chandra & Minkovitz, 2005). This study’s results are crucial in understanding the impact that stigma can have on those experiencing depression. When stigma starts at an early age, there is likelihood it will continue on into adulthood. One study done with a selection of the general adult population in Germany found that the biggest response as to why one would not seek help for depression was the fear of discrimination that would come from it (Schomerus, Matschinger, & Angermeyer, 2009). In other words, these participants were getting at the idea of being fearful of the stigma.

Stigma is a common theme that is embedded in much of the research when it comes to depression and Erving Goffman’s contributions to Labeling Theory will be a helpful lens in explaining why stigma has an impact on one’s self-identity and the consequences that come from this. The past research and Goffman’s lens will help to link the ideas of depression, gender, and stigma together and demonstrate why it is important to look at these factors at once.

 

Methodology:

 For the purposes of this paper the method used will be a case study approach. A case study allows for an evaluation of where the research has been and where it is going in order to see where the gap in the research lays. Furthermore, a case study is beneficial in allowing me to highlight the various parts to my thesis which are stigma, gender, and depression in order to make connections and form new ideas.

 

Body:

 History of stigma:

 According to Goffman, the idea of stigma came from the Greek people who would put signs on people’s bodies to expose them in some way (1963). These signs would demonstrate certain labels such as whether someone was a slave or a criminal (Goffman, 1963). Today though, we use stigma as a way to categorize people in terms of social situations (Goffman, 1963). Goffman categorizes stigma into three categories and when using this method, the stigma that comes along with depression would be under the category he labels as stigma revolving around individual character (1963). In this case, those with depression are made to feel like they are weak in a way that unnatural (Goffman, 1963). This is problematic because our society has a tendency to put people into boxes that we think they belong in, with no consideration as to how it could impact the person being categorized emotionally. This then puts the stigmatized individual in a position where they may feel the need to defend themselves or respond in a way that shows that they are different then how they were categorized (Goffman, 1963).

Importance of looking at stigma within this research:

 When studying depression is it essential to understand the stigma that comes along with it because as mentioned before, this can have an impact on whether or not a person is willing to seek treatment or accept themselves. Two researchers credit Goffman for introducing the importance of this idea in that stigma discredits the individual “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (Link & Phelan, 2013). Goffman’s work seeks to move towards a way to manage this stigma for those experiencing it (1963). The importance here is not only managing the stigma but understanding that it plays a significant role in reducing the number of people willing to seek treatment for depression (Chandra & Minkovitz, 2005, Schomerus et al., 2009). The amount of perceived stigma that individuals think they will undergo is significant in their willingness to seek help (Chandra & Minkovitz, 2005). Although this differs a bit by gender which will be discussed later, it is still an important fact to note. The dangers of stigma preventing mental health treatment have the potential to be very dangerous to those who are experiencing depression. In the same work presented by.

Gender and stigma:

 As mentioned above, stigma also differs when it comes to the binary genders of male and female. In the work presented by Chandra and Minkovitz, girls were more likely to consider seeking professional help as a sign of strength (2005). This finding lines up with the typical view in society that boys/males are weak if they show their true emotions. Boys in this study also had more negative attitudes toward seeking professional help due to the associated stigmas that come along with doing so (Chandra & Minkovitz, 2005). According to Gagné, Vasiliadis, & Préville, approximately half of people who are experiencing depression will not seek help (2014). In one study the results showed that men were more likely to conceal that they were experiencing depression rather that share this information (Burke, Wang, & Dovidio, 2014). It was also discussed that for those who do decide to disclose what they are going through, they are more likely to face what the study refers to as prejudicial attitudes from others which is in line with the idea of stigma (Burke et al., 2014).

Gender differences of experiencing depression:

 As with stigma, depression in general often varies between the binary division of males and females. Depression is much more common in women so much so that one research presents that whereas 21.3 percent of women are likely to be diagnosed in their lifetime, only 12.7 percent of men will be diagnosed (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). By the time that girls are 13 years old it is said that their rates of depression begin to increase up until late adolescence which marks the point when rates double as far as likelihood to experience depression (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). There is current research however from both perspectives of binary gender categories and what makes each gender more or less likely to experience depression. When it comes to females, two things they may face that increase their likelihood of depression are the pressure of gender roles and the idea of self-concept (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). As far as gender roles, adolescent girls tend to feel that they can only pursue certain activities and opportunities that are normally considered for their gender in fear of feeling rejected (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). With the idea of self-concept, girls tend to be more engrossed in the idea of looking their best and test to succumb to more criticism and the need to be perfect (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). When it comes to the male gender, an article from the Journal of Men’s Studies also stresses that depression rates in males as well can be affected by the perceived ideas of gender roles (Genuchi & Mitsunaga, 2015). This is understandable when considering that in society men are socialized to act tough at all times. This article also found that when it comes to depression, men will display their experiences with depression differently which can many times mask the underlying depression (Genuchi & Mitsunaga, 2015). Whereas women were found to internally display symptoms of depression in terms of how they were feeling, men were more likely to display things such as anger, substance abuse, and a higher sex drive (Genuchi & Mitsunaga, 2015). The ways in which men were seen to externalize depression do not seem likely to show that they are experiencing depression. The ways in which men displayed their struggle with depression in this study was referred to by Genuchi and Mitsunaga as atypical (2015).

Exploring the connections between gender, stigma, and depression:

Posted on by
3

There are questions that surrounds two organizations that are pivotal in European politics and collective interdependent. One of which, The North Atlantics Treaty Organization or NATO, is purely defined and created as a defensive alliance interdependent organization. NATO was created as a deterrence system in the aftermath of WWII. Europeans and indeed much of the world were war weary, more concerned with economic expansion and regional stability during this time, primarily aimed at keeping at bay extremist forces that threatened their prosperity, chiefly the Soviet Union. Likewise the Soviets viewed NATO and their actions as an aggressive force, causing Soviet states to become more interdependent on fellow communist states, mainly this is evident with the Warsaw Pact.
Keeping peace and maintaining the status quo for reconstruction and economic expansion post world war two was the primary concern for most, including the USA. In retrospect there were ideas on how to be more efficient through the great boom of the 50s. One of these ideas led to agreements on the European community or EC which initiated talks of trade and cooperation between Germany and France, which eventually formed into the current 28 member European Union. The EU was formed through deepening and expansion policies through its life cycle. As countries became more interdependent and acceptant to the role of the EC and EU more policies and treaties formed the role of comparable lose federal governmental body, dismissing sovereignty and legitimacy of the nation state.
Indeed the EU was formed out of the EC with its own monetary system, humanitarian laws, judiciary, parliament, bureaucracies and councils. The only real area the EU was lacking at the time of formation is primarily in foreign policy and security. However, the onset of the civil war in Yugoslavia shifted the spotlight of domestic policies into external polices. The EU found that there could be potential of a spillover effect from the conflict, thus when EU policy makers had the opportunity to take action, their role began in negotiations and financial support for conflict resolutions and security. The most obvious reasoning for action on the EU’s behalf could be that it was good for business. Furthermore, this conflict being in Europe and the nature of how it was unfolding there were echoes of the atrocities committed during WWII continuing into this conflict, possibly with the same motives and prejudice that were ongoing for the past half century. Post Balkans, the EU continued its peacekeeping initiatives, however the scale is not as large, speaking strictly in budgetary terms. Typically NATO primary operation have an immense overhead, and the EU may lack the effectiveness and efficiency of the more prestigious NATO peacekeeping operation. Additionally, the US is still seen as giving some form of aid to the EU during these periods of peacekeeping in Europe well into the late 2000s.
Well into the 2000s the EU is still maintaining a global initiative in the foreign policy arena, while most of these operations are for humanitarian initiatives and peacekeeping in former colonies such as Mali which is led by its former colonial master France, and notably with some assistance from the US. With an external foreign policy that is more aggressive, it’s fair to say that some members may be tempted to opt out of the traditional NATO option first and rely on mechanism from institutions that are more readily available for inclusions in the decision making process. When there is a shift in power or new actors participating in global decisions, how do the old institutions make room for the newer ones? Regarding NATO, is there a clear definition on its role post-cold war? Will the EU have a more concrete role in foreign policy? Finally, is there a dichotomous relationship with the EU and NATO?
This research attempts to address the role of NATO and the EU in the 21st century through clubs good theory and rational choice. NATO and the EU maintain operations that are primarily considered as exclusionary international organizations made up of member states. However, given the special relationships with outside member states that receive benefits from the organizations how has NATO or the EU diminished their role as an exclusionary actor, while offering benefits to nonmember states including international collaboration between the EU and NATO respectively.
Literature Review
Methodology
The research’s purpose is to show and discuss the roles of NATO and the EU through the lens of the club goods theory. Essentially, the clubs good theory is a broad in subject matter as goods could be considered any item that is offered by the organization in a collective form. For simplifications purposes, there will be two main goods that will be compared between both organizations. The first good is NATO’s collective defense posture or what international relations calls physical security. NATO will be examined as any operation that existed in the defense of NATO members and if NATO’s policies in defense deviated in any form to non-member countries. The basis behind this is to evaluate in the club goods product that is being offered by the member in exclusionary and cannot be accessed from non-members.
Excludability will also be an indicator with rational choice, meaning if any non-member receives aid in the form of physical security and is not a member nor became a member then the good in not club in form, therefore rational actors will not seek membership. The EU is measured by its main theme of economic expansionism. Here the measurement is the ease of trade, openness of borders, monetary union and protectionism policies from external actors. Again, the members will seek membership only if these benefits through club goods are only offered to the members or potential members, and like NATO rational members will seek membership if the benefit outweighs the cost.
For both the EU and NATO the examination will be expressly limited to the conflict in the Balkans. NATO’s operations will be examined to see if the goods that were distributed were for the common good of the collective alliance. Likewise the EU also participated in the operations within the Balkans. The operational cost of conducting these operations must be less than the gains felt by the EU. Finally if there are any potential relationships between the EU and NATO for the duration of the Yugoslav civil war one actor may supplement and carry over more benefits that non-members may receive, thus reducing the benefit for joining or maintaining that relationship for the other alliance.
NATO
NATO’s Roots and Roles in the Past (Cold War)
The treaty that formed NATO, known as the Washington Treaty, was finalized in Washington DC on the 4th April 1949, which was original ratified by twelve founding members. The treaty its self is short, a mere 14 articles and is championed by NATO as being unaltered and sticking to its core principles, mainly to article five which forms the backbone of the treaty.
Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

The treaty is elegantly short and there was little deliberation in such a short time for the amount of effort and scope that it entailed so many states to act cooperatively. Why did these states give up their defensive sovereignty so quickly? The NATO members who initially formed this treaty for some time were deeply concerned with the soviet threat in Eastern Europe. During the aftermath of the Second World War the states that were victorious against the axis powers were restructuring the political and geographical map of Europe. According to David Yost in NATO’s Rebalancing act (2014), Stalin remarked to a group of communist Yugoslavs in April of 1945
This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach

Stalin was clear, he would not allow free elections in central and Eastern Europe that were under Soviet influence, and thus there was no honoring the Yalta conference’s agreement of February 1945 (Yost, 2014). By Potsdam Stalin’s intentions were made clear, “any freely elected government would be anti-Soviet and that we cannot permit”, Stalin further elaborated in 1948 that he felt deep regret for not liberating Italy and France with the Soviet military and in his view there was a failure of empowering the communist forces of western and southern Europe (Yost, 2014). However, even more strikingly there was an alarming rate of expansionism from the Soviet state, the only great allied power to actively acquire and absorb more territories (Yost, 2014). The Soviet Union acquired the states of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, while taking territories from Czechoslovakia, Finland and completely Russianized the former German state of Prussia (Yost, 2014).
While territorial gains were made, estimated around 492,600 square km, the Soviet Union also controlled state governments that it had liberated, whilst maintaining a hostile and aggressive relationship with western states, effectively blocking Berlin by rail and road from June 1948 until May 1949 (Yost, 2014). During this period the western states became increasing more proactive in discussion with the possibilities of collective defensive postures in Europe (Yost, 2014) (NATO, 2016). Dialogue was already underway with the Brussels treaty in March 1948, this was due to the United States rhetoric indicating that US military forces would only protect Europe if there is a united European effort (NATO, 2016). The Brussels Treaty signed in March 1948 by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands was a response to the US posture and signaled that there was a common defense policy within Europe, which effectively became the prelude to the Washington Treaty (NATO, 2016).
From the United States perspective the Neutrality act indicated to Adolf Hitler that his actions on one state is minimal in consequences, where by the collect cooperation between several states would counter balance the repercussions felt by the aggressor (Yost, 2014). Debates between senators as to the validity of the Treaty became evident, as in the senate hearings surrounding the treaty, secretary of state Dean Acheson was asked
Are we going to be expected to send substantial numbers of troops over there as a more or less permanent contribution to these countries’ capacity to resist? Acheson replied, the answer to the Question, senator, is a clear and absolute ‘No. (Yost, 2014)

While these question might have indicated that there is little chance that that there will be an effective fighting force in the European theater, Senator Arthur Vandenberg raised the issue of the neutrality posture verses a stance
Senator, so far as I am concerned, I think a man can bore for this treaty and not vote for a nickel to implement it, because so far as I am concerned, the opening sentence of the treaty is a notification to Mr. Stalin which puts him exactly the contrary position to that which Mr. Hitler was in, because Mr. Hitler saw us with the Neutrality act. Mr. Stalin now sees us with a pact of cooperative action. (Yost, 2014)

The aftermath was the Vandenberg resolution in June 1948, which laid the ground work for the United States to enter in a collective self-defensive alliance during peacetime. The Brussels treaty states, the United States and Canada put forth the Washington Treaty, while the core drafters of the treaty were compromised from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Other countries from the Brussels treaty were active with the initial discussions with a working group that is referred to the “six power talks” (NATO, 2016). Formally the treaty negotiations began 10 December 1948 in Washington DC, there Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Italy and Portugal all were participants of the concluding negotiations which started on 8 March 1949 (NATO, 2016).
NATO’s role when formed was not necessarily considered isolated just in terms of a military alliance for the protection of the transatlantic countries, yet more as a stabilizer for the post WWII Western European members (Union) or what is commonly referred to as the WEU. The founders of the WEU included all the Brussels treaty states whom in turn invited West Germany and Italy to join to form the WEU in 1954, while West Germany eventually being incorporated into NATO by 1955 (McCormick, Olsen, 2014). The WEU was far more symbolic than the defensive posture it held onto previously with the Brussels treaty, it was a statement of unity for Europe. Regardless the ideas that conceptualized a defensive Europe brought about a transatlantic relationship and the United States would back the concept. In the words of Secretary of State Dean Acheson
[NATO is] the vehicle for American stabilizer role in Western Europe… [NATO is] not merely a military structure to prepare collective defense against military aggression, but also a political organization to preserve to peace for Europe (Ivanov, 2011)

NATO Enlargements
The enlargement of NATO is largely controversial and varies from country. The United States maintains that NATO should include smaller weaker countries that are more susceptible to attack or in the past from Soviet aggression (NATO, 2016). The United Kingdom however, sought to keep the alliance tighter knit and smaller in scoop, keeping the mission more directed to larger threats that are pressing to the founding members while not getting bogged down in smaller conflicts and distractions (NATO, 2016). Meanwhile, France and Belgium still had colonial possessions, Algeria and the Congo that could benefit from NATO involvement and inclusion (NATO, 2016). France was able to finagle Algeria into their political system and administration under the umbrella of NATO however by the conclusion of the Algeria war of independence in 1962 the article dealing with French Algeria became irrelevant (NATO, 2016).
Until the 1980s only three countries were admitted into NATO prior to 1982, being Greece and Turkey first in 1952 and the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955 (Yost, 2014). Spain was able to join following their democratization from the Fascist Franco Regime in 1982. Almost a decade later in 1989 the Warsaw Pact disintegrated ushering in a wave of western influences into Eastern Europe, giving way to three post-cold war enlargement waves. The first wave in 1997 invited the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungry, whom were admitted into the alliance in 1999 (Yost, 2014). The second wave by 2004 brought Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Slovakia into the fold and additionally Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who were all former Soviet republics (Yost, 2014). Finally, Croatia and Albania were formally admitted into NATO by April 2009 (Yost, 2014).
The Role in post-cold war non-article five operations (Balkans)
As stated previously, NATO’s primary role is seen mainly as a defensive alliance, however there is a fundamental change that is transpiring on where the emphasis of who or what NATO is defending against. Traditionally the role of NATO eventually morphed to counter balance the aggressive nature of the Soviet Union post-world war two. During this period on 14 May 1955 the Soviet system set up a reflecting defensive alliance in the Eastern bloc called the Warsaw pact. The Warsaw was formed in Warsaw Poland at the presidential palace and the pact’s mission was too protect allied communist states, maintain the status quo for the political systems and buffered the Soviet republics. After the fall of the Soviet system and the disintegration of this system several problems arise such as to who and what is NATO protecting against.
Since 1991 NATO has set forth the strategic concepts documents which outlines the overall political objectives and military postures that it faces (Yost, 2014). The Strategic Concepts prior to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc has classified, yet there seemed to have been some need to clarify just what the role of NATO needs to be during this evolutionary period (Yost, 2014). The Strategic Concepts documents of 1991 details an emphases of defensive postures in NATO, explicitly regarding the territorial sovereignty of its members, namely through article five worded in the Strategic concepts documents under part II paragraph fifteen (see Appendix B) (Yost, 2014). However given what is worded from the 1991 documents there has been little foresight on what would transpire with the Balkans that would require non-article five operations. However the strategic concepts documents outlines in paragraph fifteen the importance of upholding of article five as well as the 1990 London Declaration, the declaration states in the second paragraph
The North Atlantic Alliance has been the most successful defensive alliance in history. As our Alliance enters its fifth decade and looks ahead to a new century, it must continue to provide for the common defence. This Alliance has done much to bring about the new Europe. No-one, however, can be certain of the future. We need to keep standing together, to extend the long peace we have enjoyed these past four decades. Yet our Alliance must be even more an agent of change. It can help build the structures of a more united continent, supporting security and stability with the strength of our shared faith in democracy, the rights of the individual, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We reaffirm that security and stability do not lie solely in the military dimension, and we intend to enhance the political component of our Alliance as provided for by Article 2 of our Treaty. (NATO, 2000)

NATO has stated that there needs to be an “agent of change”, according to Yost (2014) this vehicle of deliver to the developing European states was the Conference of Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). The CSCE set up the conference in Paris to coordinate the creation of the institutions needed while the Rome summit in November 1991 reaffirmed the commitment for states to identify the “common code of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, rule of law, security and economic liberty” (Yost, 2014).
The beginnings of NATO new era into the 21st century appeared to be coordinate a smoother transition from the post-cold war and create a dialogue with the WEU and former Warsaw pact members. Additionally there were instances where the old system in the east brought some stability in ethnic issues whereas when the disintegration did occurred these checks that maintained the status quo also evaporated. Examples could be felt all over the Eastern bloc. Some of these instances were from the tensions that were between the Slovaks and the Czechs and then the eventually separation Czechoslovakia into now the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Governments were rising and falling the far eastern portions of Europe, notably the issues can be seen today with Ukraine were there are ethnic tensions with the eastern (ethnically Russian influenced) and western portions of the country. Moldova and Belarus are other notable governments that have a history of Russian influences that are struggling with the new found identity issue within Europe as well.
However the most pressing issue for the WEU is the collapse of the former Yugoslavia Republics, in quick secessions as a domino effect from north to south. Slovenia and Croatia were the first to declare their independence in 1991. The ethnic tensions that followed prompted the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to pass a resolution in April 1993 to set up safe zones within Bosnia (Ivanov, 2011). The UNSC authorized the use of peacekeepers called United Nations Protective Force (UNPORFOR) to monitor to situation (Ivanov, 2011). NATO was chosen as the military muscle to enforce this operation and ensure the safe zones around Sarajevo were effective, and for NATO this operation was considered the first cornerstone into its new evolutionary role into non-article five operations (Ivanov, 2011).
Traditionally as hinted previously by Secretary of State Dean Acheson, the United States has been known to be the primary contributor to the hard power of the Transatlantic Alliance, however the UNSC wanted a more proactive Europe to contribute to the stability of its own continent. Therefore the UNSC set up two different zones of influence within the Bosnian operation through the UN, one would be administers by NATO forces and the other from WEU members thus giving the two international organizations more dialogue for the operation (Ivanov, 2011). The WEU in conjunction with NATO under the auspices of the UN, led an arms embargo on the entirety of Yugoslavia and economic sanctions were enforced onto Serbia and Montenegro (Yost, 2014). The arms embargo was controversial at the time as it was argued by the United States that it favor the already armed forces of Serbia and the under armed forces that were resisting the aggression, whereas the United States had the perspective to lift and strike, as the operations were targeted towards the well-armed Bosnian Serbs while arming the opposition forces (Yost, 2014). NATO’s first military operation, Operation Deliberate Force (ODF), was launched on 30 August 1995 (Ivanov, 2011) (Yost, 2014). ODF was a reaction to Serbian paramilitary bombings that were occurring in Sarajevo and atrocities that occurred Srebrenica in the summer of 1995 (Ivanov, 2011). NATO flew 3,400 bombing sorties in just two weeks and conducted 338 targeted individual bombing runs (Ivanov, 2011). The overall objective of ODF was to break the Bosnian Serbian Forces and bring about a peaceful resolution to the Bosnian Conflict (Yost, 2014). The use of military force by ODF is said to have attributed to the Serbs finally coming to the table for the Paris agreements in November-December 1995 and eventually to the Dayton Peace Accords (Ivanov, 2011).
Post-Dayton Peace Accords tasked NATO’s as the backbone of the multinational peacekeeping force (IFOR). IFOR’s role was a transformational role in the form of peacekeeping operations that had a mandated shelf life of one year (Ivanov, 2011). The IFOR role was to collect heavy weapons and dispose of them, reconstructions of civic buildings, patrol airspaces around Bosnia and demobilize paramilitary forces with its area of operations (Ivanov, 2011). However, it became evident the IFOR role would not be concluded with the one year expiration term (Ivanov, 2011). When the term expired the international community that authorized the use of the IFOR transformed the entity into the Stabilizing Force (SFOR) which would carry on much of the same duties as the IFOR (Ivanov, 2011). The SFOR carried on a few more duties to include operations that hunted down war criminals, more civil reconstruction efforts and safeguarding the environment through peacekeeping and arms control measures in addition to demining operations (Ivanov, 2011). SFOR mission remained active until 2004, after which Bosnia was deemed dramatically stabilized (Ivanov, 2011).
The post-SFOR mission or operation Althea, formulated during the Berlin Plus agreement is largely conducted by the same EU countries that participated in the previous SFOR although dramatically reduced in size and still the EU states cooperate and utilizes the assistance of the NATO administrative functions (Ivanov, 2011). NATO forces may have been able to bring about peace within Kosovo through the Dayton Peace accords, yet by 1998 Serbia-Kosovo tension were escalating to the point ethnic aggression (Ivanov, 2011). The United States during both Bush and the Clinton administration’s took a hard stance regarding Kosovo, as Bush the senior stated
In the Event of Conflict in Kosovo caused by Serbian actions, the United States will be prepared to employ military force against the Serbians in Kosovo and in Serbia proper (Yost, 2014)

While Bush’s successor administration carried out the same rhetoric, Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated
We are not going to stand by and watch the Serbian authorities do in Kosovo what they can no longer get away with doing in Bosnia (Yost, 2014)

The conflict with Kosovo is perspectival different in magnitude, not necessarily in a geographical sense in scale, but more of a peacemaking-keeping latitude on both fronts of the conflict. Kosovo, was previously an autonomous province within Yugoslavia populated mostly by ethnic Albanians, was stripped of its autonomy by 1989 when Slobodan Milosevic stripped the autonomous province for conciliatory powers in the ascension to the presidency (Ivanov, 2011). For most of the durations of the 1990s, the resistance to the Serbian overlords by ethnic Albanians was largely non-violent, however by the latter part of the 1990s the resistance movement led by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) became more militaristic and targeted the majority led Serbian institutions (Ivanov, 2011). From the realm of international relations the subject of Kosovo and Serbia was more complex. Kosovo was merely regarded as a region of Serbia, so the posture poised was maintaining the status quo during the mid-1990s (Ivanov, 2011).
By late 1998 Serbian forces were retaliating to resistance in the province with mass killings, many of whom were non-combatants (Ivanov, 2011). The international community that was observing the violence within the region called the Contact Group for the former Yugoslavia, proposed a plan to end the conflict called the Hill process (Ivanov, 2011). The Hill process did not seek a separation or end game for the region of Kosovo, but more inclusionary avenues of governance for the ethnic majority within Kosovo through levels of governmental participation and more autonomy from Serbia (Ivanov, 2011). Similarly, the UNSC devised resolution 1199 demanding cessations of hostility between the two parties or there would be a NATO led operation of force to resolve the issue (Ivanov, 2011). Milosevic Agreed to the cessation of activities, although a massacred happed shortly after in Racak where forty civilians were claimed to have been killed by Serbian forces (Ivanov, 2011).
It became evident that the negotiations within Belgrade between the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo and the Serbian government had dramatically deteriorated to the point of no return, the Allies fearfully of a breakdown and what British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared “to avert a humanitarian disaster”, NATO launched Operation Allied Force (OAF) (Yost, 2014). Over 78 days there were 38,000 sorties and 10,484 strike sorties on Serbian forces. It became clear that the Serb forces within Serbia were more resilient to military action than that of Serbs within the Bosnia during the 21 day military action of ODF (Yost, 2014). By 3 June 1999, Milosevic met with Finnish and Russian envoys in Belgrade, there Milosevic came to the realization that the world community was resolutely behind the allied campaign (Yost, 2014). Milosevic realizing his isolation from the international community withdrew all Serbian forces from Kosovo as underlined from UNSC resolution 1244, which paved the way for the NATO led Kosovo peacekeeping force (KFOR) (Yost, 2014). The UNSC resolution 1244 never recognized Kosovo independence, regardless by 2008 it declared its independence and the majority of NATO and EU member states recognize its independence and the only EU and NATO states Slovakia, Greece, Romania and Spain EU member states do not recognize Kosovo (Yost, 2014). Cyprus is the only EU non-NATO member that does not recognize Kosovo independence (Yost, 2014).
The European Union
There have been Europeans in the past that have dreamed of making some semblance of a united Europe that casts away the ideology of national governments and more European interdependency. Yet realization and foundations of this dream did not come to fruition in a single point of time yet the birth of the European Union can be found in the middle of the 20th century during the great economic boom in Europe following WWII. In April 1951 the Treaty of Paris can be called the “conception” of the EU. The Treaty of Paris created the European Coal and Steel community which conceptualized regional European trade and dependency. Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet devised a plan, or known as the Schuman Declaration, detailed an amazing treaty that would bring about mutual dependency on trade between the Steel and coal community by eliminating the national governments and industrial cartels grip on the production capabilities of these commodities (McCormick, Olsen, 2014). Ultimately this would mitigate and extinguish any possibilities of war being declared by the two countries from resources on their borders. Additionally, Italy and the three Benelux countries Belgium, the Netherlands and Holland also signed the Treaty (McCormick, Olsen, 2014).
By 1957 another step was taken when the ECSC countries created the European Economic Community (EEC) in the Treaty of Rome (McCormick, Olsen, 2014). The EEC created institutions that the EU still utilizes in the modern era, Councils of Ministers, the Commission, parliament and the Courts of Justice (McCormick, Olsen, 2014). In addition to the EEC, the treaty of Rome also created the European Atomic and Energy Community (Euratom).

NATO and The EU Security integration
“The European Union in the Security of Europe” Pgs 120-131
“The European Security and Defense Policy” Pgs 83-85 Crisis Management programs
Discussion
NATO is seen to have played an active role during the Bosnian conflict, the chief advantages from the conflict as it applies to the club goods theory is threefold. First, the conflict achieved the overall objective described from a United States perspective, which is to act as an “American stabilizer from western Europe”. Indeed Yugoslavia may not pertain to the west generally, yet the state was surrounded by a plethora of NATO and WEU allies. The chance of a spill over war was too great for NATO to remain inactive, therefore article four would be the most logical route for NATO to actively participate in the UNPORFOR. Secondly, the operation gave potential member states the incentive to participate in European stability operations. Former communist States such as the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungry and Bulgaria all recognize if their participation was notable during this first non-article five operation, there would be deep considerations for their admittance into the transatlantic Alliance, and indeed by OAF they were active members of NATO.
The exact basis of their participation offered them essentially exclusive rights of passage into the organization, along with their continual tract record of aspiring to the western ideology and values. However the third point is the failure for the Strategic concepts of not perceiving a future breakdown. The transatlantic alliance may not have failed to act when the time came for the conflict in the Balkans, yet there was underlying warning strategically to notify its members and potential members that crises management and reaction was needed. NATO since the 1991 Strategic Concepts documents has updated its goals since then. The 1999 revision to its goals broadens its scope to include what occurred during the Balkans. Hence the 1999 Strategic concepts states
6. NATO’s essential and enduring purpose, set out in the Washington Treaty, is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Alliance has striven since its inception to secure a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe. It will continue to do so. The achievement of this aim can be put at risk by crisis and conflict affecting the security of the Euro-Atlantic area. The Alliance therefore not only ensures the defence of its members but contributes to peace and stability in this region. (NATO, 1999)

Here NATO’s Strategic Concepts evolves into a regional dialect, where previously there is strong emphasis on the member states, whereas in 1999 stability in this region gives more berth to the potential actions of NATO.
Conclusion
Sources:
Bebler, A., ed. NATO at 60. Amsterdam, NLD: IOS Press, 2010. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 22 January 2016.
Bindi, Federiga M. The Foreign Policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s Role in the World. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2012. Print.
Goldgeier, James M., Future of NATO. New York, NY, USA: Council on Foreign Relations, 2010. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 22 January 2016.
Hallams, Ellen. The United States and NATO since 9/11: The Transatlantic Alliance Renewed. London: Routledge, 2010. Print.
Hill, Christopher, and Michael Smith. International Relations and the European Union. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.
Howorth, Jolyon, and Keeler, John T. S., eds. Defending Europe: The EU, NATO, and the Quest for European Autonomy. Gordonsville, VA, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 22 January 2016.
Hunter, Robert Edwards. The European Security and Defense Policy: NATO’s Companion – or Competitor? Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2002. Print.
Ivanov, Ivan Dinev. Transforming NATO: New Allies, Missions, and Capabilities. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2011. Print.
Jones, Erik, Anand Menon, and Stephen Weatherill. The Oxford Handbook of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Kaplan, Lawrence S., and Robert W. Clawson. NATO after Thirty Years. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, 1981. Print.
Kashmeri, Sarwar A. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union’s Common Security and Defense Policy: Intersecting Trajectories. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2011. Print.
Kuhn, Michael, ed. Who Is the European? : A New Global Player? New York, NY, USA: Peter Lang Publishing, 2007. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 22 January 2016.
Larrabee, F. Stephen, Johnson, Stuart E., and Gordon, John IV. NATO and the Challenges of Austerity. Santa Monica, CA, USA: RAND Corporation, 2012. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 22 January 2016.
Marsh, Steve, and G. Wyn Rees. The European Union in the Security of Europe: From Cold War to Terror War. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012. Print.
McCormick, John. Understanding the European Union: A Concise Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print.
McCormick, John, and Johnathan Olsen. The European Union: Politics and Policies. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2014. Print.
McNutt, Patrick. Public Goods and Club Goods 1999. Web. 15 February 2016
Merlingen, Michael. EU Security Policy: What It Is, How It Works, Why It Matters? Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2012. Print.
Moore, Rebecca R. NATO’s New Mission: Projecting Stability in a Post-Cold War World. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007. Print.
NATO. The Alliance’s Strategic Concepts 24 Apr. 1999 Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
NATO. “The Founding Treaty.” Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
NATO. The London Declaration 2000 documents Web. 13 MAR. 2016 http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c900706a.htm
NATO Facts and Figures. Brussels: NATO Information Service, 1976. Print.
Petersson, Magnus, and Janne Haaland. Matlary. NATO’s European Allies: Military Capability and Political Will. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Rodrigues, L.N., and Dubovyk, V., eds. NATO Science for Peace and Security – E: Human and Societal Dynamics : Perceptions of NATO and the New Strategic Concept. Amsterdam, NLD: IOS Press, 2010. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 22 January 2016.
Yost, David S. NATO’s Balancing Act. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2014. Print.

Corporations as People in the Social Contract–Draft #1

Posted on by
3

David Earleywine

POL399

“Corporations are people, my friend,” declared Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate, during his campaign (Greenfield, 310).  While this line was not Romney’s downfall in the 2012 presidential election, it stands out as one of the more contentious and infamous lines of his campaign.  His statement came just a few years after the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case in 2010 affirmed corporations as people.  Many American citizens, including President Obama, wrestled with the terminology put forth in the Citizens United case bestowing personhood upon corporations.  

The Citizens United ruling does not make sense to the average American citizen because comparing human beings to corporations would seemingly be comparing apples to oranges. Corporations and human beings are, like apples and oranges, distinctly different entities. In contrast to Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people,” President Obama responded saying “I don’t care how many times you try to explain it, corporations aren’t people. People are people” (Greenfield, 310).  President Obama, like many Americans, sensed there is something inherently different between corporations and people, despite what the legal jargon of the Supreme Court stated.

However, since the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people, individuals who disagree with the decision must reconcile their personal beliefs with the outcome.  Personally, I struggle with this ruling handed down by the Supreme Court and am conducting this research to help resolve this discontinuity of my personal beliefs that corporations are not people and the decision of the court.  Resolving this matter requires questions about corporate personhood to be asked and to be answered.

For example, do corporations, despite being granted personhood, have the same rights, liberties, and freedoms as human persons?  Are corporations part of the “We the people” referred to in the United States Constitution granting them constitutionally protected rights, freedoms and liberties?  These questions all remain unanswered.  However, we can be certain about one aspect of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling regarding corporations: it created a conundrum regarding the definition of persons and their role in society. The Supreme Court of the United States, using a Living Document interpretation of the Constitution, redefined corporations as people, which creates an ambiguous and unintended role for corporations within the Lockean concept of the Social Contract.

This paper will examine how corporations are defined in a political context in the United States, with a particular emphasis on how they fit into the John Locke’s view of the Social Contract.  The Supreme Court, which interprets the law and helps provide legal definitions, has continued to define corporations since the early days of the United States. Supreme Court cases in the early 1800s began shaping and molding the legal definition of corporations that America has today.  The United States Constitution never uses the word corporation which means that the 2010 Supreme Court interpreted its own meaning out of how to define corporations. The Citizens United ruling was a clear use of both interpreting the Constitution as a Living Document and judicial activism.

This paper seeks to understand the role of corporations, as defined in a political context by the Supreme Court, in the United States in view of the Social Contract Theory.  First and foremost, I will lay out a working definitions for corporations and people.  As the goal of this paper is to help understand the role corporations in the Social Contract, I will provide a common definition for consistency.  It is vital to understand how the definition of corporations have evolved over time from the earliest days of the United States. Similarly, as the definition of corporations grew over time, the definition of a human person has grown during the course of American history. At the time that John Locke was writing about Social Contract Theory, a man referred to a white property-owning male.

Furthermore, I will give historical context to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and how the legal definition of corporations has evolved over time.  This research will highlight landmark Supreme Court cases that focused on corporations, their rights, and their status in a social and political context. By conducting qualitative analysis of law review articles and Supreme Court cases, I will synthesize the results to determine the role of corporations within the Social Contract.

Lit Review (I will come up with a better name for this section!)

While this research will focus on corporations in the United States, it is necessary to obtain a background of the Social Contract Theory and its role in the founding of this country.  John Locke, a 17th century British philosopher, is largely considered one of the fathers of Social Contract Theory.  Other thinkers, such as Jean Jacque Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, are also famous for their writings on Social Contract Theory. However, the Lockean view of the Social Contract Theory was the most influential on the founding of the United States and American political thought.

Locke’s influence on the founding of the United States is due in part because he wrote plainly and explicitly about the beginning of a political society. The crux of social contract theory can be summed up by the following passage from Locke’s Second Treatise of Government which states:

Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest (Locke, Page 146, para 95).

As Locke points out, the Social Contract Theory is entered into by the free consent of men agreeing with other men.  Agreeing to the contract is done in order to “secure enjoyment of their properties” and for “comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another” (Locke, p. 146, para 95).  Therefore, only men who freely consent to forgo some of their liberties are able to join the contract.  When Locke wrote about the Social Contract in the 17th century, men referred to white landowning males.

Locke’s interpretation of the Social Contract gave a foundation for American political philosophy and the Constitution. Currently, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case of 2010 has reignited the debate of corporations as people. In the mid 19th century the Supreme Court defined corporations as citizens for litigation purposes ( Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad Company v. Letson, 1844).  The Letson decision led into the County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case which is the first time corporations were considered legal persons (1886).  

Corporations rights have continued to grow and evolve over time expanding to First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights to name a few.  These rights granted by the government are different than the liberties man holds in the state of nature referred to by Locke.  The answer to “What role should corporations have in the Social Contract,” will be fleshed out via an understanding  of the Social Contract and the legal rights corporations are granted in the United States,

Defining Corporations and Persons

One of the issues with the decision to grant corporations the state of personhood in the Citizens United case is that it blew away the average person’s concept of what it meant to be a person. This begs the question of how to define both corporations and persons. The book Corporations are not People: Reclaiming Democracy from Big Money and Global Corporations defines corporations as “a government-defined legal structure for doing business with legal privileges that can only be provided by government” (Clements, p.64).  Clement’s definition is valid, but does not paint the full picture. A more complete definition of a corporation comes from the Merriam Webster dictionary which defines a corporation “a large business or organization that under the law has the rights and duties of an individual and follows a specific purpose.”  This definition could include organizations such as unions, non-profits, banks, businesses, and the like.

When President Obama stated “corporations aren’t people” it was due to the fact that he felt there was an inherent difference between corporations and people (Greenfield, 310).  President Obama’s sentiment indicated there is an implicit difference between corporations and people, and I agree. However, the dictionary definition considers the legal rights of corporations and for the purpose of this paper the working definition of corporation will be the one laid out by the Merriam-Webster.

So, with the working definition for corporations in mind, it is important to note a working definition for persons. When the average American citizen refers to persons, they undoubtedly mean human beings. However, in a legal definition, one must use the phrase human person or natural person to refer to a human being.  Corporations, which have been granted personhood are categorized as artificial persons or legal fiction.  This distinction is meant to distinguish between corporations and humans. Thus, for the purposes of this paper, I will differentiate between the definitions of natural persons (human beings) and persons (artificial and natural) in the broad legal sense.  

The Origins of Corporate Rights and Personhood in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has put forth rulings that impact corporations since the 1800s. While the size and scope of many corporations have changed since the founding of the United States, corporations have existed even before America was founded.  However, the following Supreme Court cases help give an understanding of how the definition of corporations have shifted over time in the United States.

As early as 1809, the fact that corporations were not people started causing issues. While Bank of the United States v. Deveaux largely focused on the jurisdiction of state and federal courts, the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Marshall reached a landmark decision regarding corporate personhood.  Peter Deveaux, a tax collector, was sued by the Bank of the United States for unlawfully seizing property. However, Deveaux claimed that the Bank of the United States, a corporation, could not sue in a federal court because it was not a person. Chief Justice Marshall and the opinion of the court agreed, stating that corporations could not sue in a federal court (Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 1809).  The only way corporations could sue or be sued in the federal courts is if all of the shareholders lived within the same state. This distinction effectively kept corporations out of federal courts and into the lower-level state courts.      

The 1819 case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward is one of the earliest instances of the Supreme Court taking a case regarding corporate rights. This case centered on the argument of whether or not the state of New Hampshire could circumvent the private charter of the university and make it a public university (Dartmouth v. Woodward, 1819).  Dartmouth’s original charter was granted not by the United States government, but by the British Crown in 1769 (Dartmouth v. Woodward, 1819). The linchpin of the argument was simply that Dartmouth violated the Constitution which states “No State shall… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power” (Article 1, Sect. 10).  However, the opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Marshall, upheld the notion that “this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States” (Dartmouth v. Woodward, 1819).  Thus, the opinion of the court recognized the sovereign rights of a corporation and its ability to make private contracts. While this Supreme Court case did not grant corporations the status of personhood, it did reiterate the importance of corporate rights.

Corporations as Citizens (and Railroads)

The court’s ruling in the 1809 Bank of the United States v. Deveaux case was overruled 35 years later. The Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad Company v. Letson case redefined corporations as citizens of the states they incorporated (1844). However, this distinction did not fix the situation of corporations effectively being held out of the federal courts for suing and being sued. This is due to the fact that a corporation’s shareholders had to all live in the same state in order to be sued. The Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad Company v. Letson case marks the first time corporations were defined as citizens within the United States and would set the stage for the expansion of corporate rights and personhood in future court decisions.

Less than a decade after the Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad Company v. Letson, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the idea that corporations are citizens, though they were not granted the same constitutional rights as human persons. Corporations were given the status of citizens for the purpose of state and federal court jurisdiction (Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 1853). Building off the 1844 Letson decision, Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad effectively allowed corporations to sue and be sued in federal court more easily. The increased ease was due to the fact that corporations, as citizens, could now be sued across state lines (Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 1853).

Corporations, now considered legal citizens, sought to expand their rights of citizenship. The County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case in 1886 set the stage to expand the rights of corporations. The Southern Pacific Railroad Company argued that a special tax levied on them by the County of Santa Clara infringed upon their equal protection under the 14th amendment. Interestingly, the Southern Pacific Railroad court reporter entered into the following line into the case summary: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (1886).  Thus, with two lines of text, the court reporter summarizing the case started the notion of corporate personhood.

During the 19th century when corporations were gaining citizenship and expanding their rights, the United States was at a crossroads regarding citizens. Less than five years after the 1853 Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad case, the now infamous Dred Scott case was decided. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not citizens of the United States and thus could not sue in court. Therefore, while the Supreme Court granted citizenship to corporations, they maintained that slaves were property and could never become citizens.

This is a surprising and interesting revelation that the court was granting Constitutional rights to corporations, but not to slaves, minorities, or women.  Essentially, during the mid 19th century, corporations were given more rights than any non-white male.  In Lance Strate’s article “The Supreme Identification of Corporations and Persons” he uses the following paragraph to lay out this contradiction.

The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery–a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? (p282-283)

Strate hits the nail on the head when he identifies corporations as a contradiction of being a legal person, yet also being owned.  The Thirteenth Amendment clearly abolished slavery, so how can a corporation be a legal person and be owned? It is a question that the Supreme Court has not directly answered.

 

References

    1. Bank of the United States v. Deveaux 9 U.S. 61 (1809).
    2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010).
    3. Clements, J. D. (2014). Corporations Are Not People : Reclaiming Democracy from Big Money and Global Corporations (2nd Edition). San Francisco, CA, USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

 

  • Greenfield, Kent, In Defense of Corporate Persons (August 4, 2015). Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 30, p. 309, 2015.

 

    1. Locke, J., & Macpherson, C. B. (1980). Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co.

 

  • Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company 57 U.S. 314 (1853).
  • Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
  • Strate, L. (2010). The Supreme Identification of Corporations and Persons. ETC: A Review Of General Semantics, 67(3), 280-286

 

  1. Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson 43 U.S. 497 (1844).
  2. Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward 17 U.S. 518 (1819).

1st Draft- Sarah Anderson

Posted on by
3

*NOTE* I really don’t like how my layout it, so I am going to extensively change that. My literature review is going to be much longer, and I am going to change and add some headings. My first draft was me just trying to get the content from my notes onto words in my paper that made sense, but I know my final draft will look nothing like this.

 

Abstract

This study examines the obsession fans have with profession football in America and professional soccer in Europe through the lens of Social Identity Theory. I am also exploring how the teams and organization capitalize on this obsession and use it to grow the obsession and fan base even more. In their research, Markovits, Miller, and Oates have connected fans of professional football with Social Identity Theory. This essentially states that professional football fans feel a sense of pride in their association with their favorite teams and being a follower of that team becomes a central component of their social identity that then becomes an extension of themselves. This theory helps to explain why fans are able to use their favorite teams to boost their individual self-esteem. I am also looking at the teams in America and how they use this theory to tend to fans’ obsessions and continue to build their fan base. I am curious to see if this theory can also be applied to the obsession that fans have with professional soccer in Europe and also if the organizations affiliated with professional European soccer teams use this theory to grow their fan base in a similar way that America does with football fans. I am hoping to use these two avenues to show how Social Identity Theory can explain the obsession that fans have from two different, but largely loved sports from two separate cultures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Comparison of American Football Fans and

European Soccer Fans

The obsession that fans have had with professional football in America has shaped their lives since the turn of the century. Throughout the past few decades, Social Identity Theory has been connected to this obsession and continues to shape its fans’ future. However, what does this exactly mean? Can this also be applied to other situations, such as professional European soccer?

One idea that started this phenomenon was the connection of Social Identity Theory to professional football. Past research by Markovits, Miller, and Oates discovered that football fans feel a sense of pride in their association with their favorite teams and being a follower of that team becomes a central part of their identity (2011). There were a lot of similarities between the self-esteem that football fans had in America with soccer fans in Europe and therefore there was a curiosity of whether the same theory could be applied that needed to be satisfied.

This study will add to past research by linking two sports from opposite ends of the globe to a theory that helps to explain obsessions that grace their society. Through the lens of Social Identity Theory, this research looks at the two obsessions through the theory as well as exploring how these teams use the obsession to make money and continue to grow their fan base for years to come. This research is a starting point to explain why fans are able to use their favorite sports teams to boost their own self-esteem. Hopefully future research will be able to expand this idea beyond these two different yet largely loved cultures to different horizons that can be connected to vastly different cultures and societies.

Literature Review

            Football has captured the hearts of millions and has quickly taken over as America’s new past time. The NFL football team is made up of an offense and a defense and they take turns trying to gain control of the ball, stop the other team from advancing the ball, and outscore their opponent. The field is 120 yards long including the end zones and it accompanies 11 men per side at a time. They take turns trying to score as many field goals, safeties, touchdowns, and conversions as possible to beat the other team and continue to capture the hearts of the fans that accompany them.

A study conducted by Oates (2009) laid out an extensive history of the sport and how its success started. Football emerged as a stunning success at the end of the 19th century and quickly underwent an impressive transformation a decade before the new millennium. Athletes were now viewed primarily as commodities that were to be consumed selectively and self-consciously by sports fans (Oates, 2009). It quickly became aware that mainstream professional football created profit- and a lot of it. Oates concluded that the way the NFL created media culture, also created important shifts in cultural meaning (2009). Different NFL teams provided an economic base for the making and selling of personhood and the fans that accompany them began to feel their players imposing on their personal lives. Being an avid football fan also meant they now had a way to project their own needs onto their favorite athletes and their favorite teams and players now became their heroes (Miller, 1997).

Miller’s research proved that football is a critical part of social life for fans that have undergone a process of rationalization that Max Weber discussed (1997). Weber saw rationalization as a process where spontaneous acts and social organization that comes from tradition, customs, and habits. This gives way to carefully calculated rules and procedures that are aimed to maximize efficiency. Miller’s research also showed that teams build and sustain a strong fan base by using Weber’s ideas and putting it into innovative technology and using it to represent the game on a more intimate level to every type of fan. Television has mastered personalizing and humanizing NFL football players enough to create strong foundations for both empathy towards the players as well as being able to identify with them on a more personal level (Miller, 1997).

Miller’s research discovered that television played a direct role in the social identity that fans connect with. The appeal of this sport was directly related to the smooth marriage of TV, the structure of the game, (and the clear establishment of a declared winner and loser) the game’s ability to give a broad spectrum of viewers a basis to identify with their favorite teams and players, and its ability to create a mass media community of viewers who have a way in which to express themselves and make status claims in the role of a fan (Miller, 1997). Very quickly audiences began to prefer to see the human side of the game and the athletes that played it. They were more responsive when the game was presented as a drama with an unpredictable outcome and Miller determined this was because it gave fans a vehicle through which to assume important new identities that contrast their work roles (1997).

Miller was able to rationalize fans using Social Identity Theory to express themselves by using the humanization and personalization of the game by technical means. There became an idea that the conviction of the televised game should be literally brought into the fans’ homes and emotional connections. The close ups of the players on the sidelines during the game could create an even greater emotional connection with the athletes. With the athlete’s human qualities even more evident, new fans began to emerge from the less sophisticated to the very knowledgeable football fan.

Miller’s research truly showed that professional football allowed its fans to have a venue in which to truly express themselves (1997). This is good because every day life isn’t usually the place that has opportunities for self-expression (Miller, 1997). Fans couldn’t fully express themselves at work or in other public settings, they only truly became who they were when football was somehow involved.

Discussion

Why Football Fans Are Able to Use Social Identity Theory to Stay Engaged

Football draws the largest media audiences of the “Big 3” team sports in America, it outnumbers the NBA and the MLB by more than 2-1 and the NFL draft outdraws the NBA draft, (its closest competitor) by several million viewers (Oates, 2009). The nature and structure of football was quickly made to be conducive to its fans’ interests. While teams huddle on the field discussing their next play, each fan has a chance to look over the possible options and even engage in serious debates with other fans and foes and in effect become an unofficial analyst of the game that they love (Miller, 1997).

Being a fan in today’s media saturated sport marketplace can be an emotional rollercoaster because it has captured the imagination of many Americans (Brendan, Terry, & LeCrom, 2014). Being a fan obsessed with football provides fans an opportunity to engage in their passions, identify with their heroes, display their patriotism, and they gain a place to participate with a community of viewers that live the way they do. This community allows fans to express their passion and their pent up frustrations that build up in other areas of life and this release helps create a more positive self image of themselves (Miller, 1997).

Fantasy football also plays a large role in the continuous engagement of professional football. The spectacle of the NFL draft, the virtual competition of fantasy football, the Madden NFL video game, and other football related amusements are remarkably popular, well developed, and central (Oates, 2009). This unique experience of the football world has been framed by the corporate world and there is a strong will to capitalize on it. Fantasy football participants represent a sizable portion of the media dominant sport fan population (Dwyer, 2011). It grows their self-esteem because it allows them to simultaneously follow their favorite sport while interacting with the people closest to them. This sport is not only important for its fans’ self-esteem, but is also huge for the corporate world. The NFL substantially benefits from highly involved fantasy football participants (Dwyer, 2011). The sustained consumption through both short term and long term usage gives the league a steady form of income. The league administrators are constantly looking to grow the overall popularity of the sport because it is a consistent cost effective promotional vehicle.

The History of Soccer

Soccer is a widely known game in Europe that is important in the lives of a large percent of the population. The rules of the game are called The Laws and a meeting of the representatives can only change them. They are from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Its offense and defense is similar to that of football, but unlike the sport, soccer has no set field dimensions. The length of the field has to be somewhere between 100 and 130 yards, and the width between 50 and 100 yards. The goal does have set dimensions. It has to be 8 feet high by 8 yards wide, with a 6 yard box immediately in front of the goal. The professional game lasts 90 minutes, (plus stoppage time) that occurs in two 45 minute halves. Eleven players are allowed on a side with 3 substitutes allowed from the players on the bench. Unlike football, in soccer once a player subs out, they are not allowed to go back in, and they are done for the game.

Soccer creates 8 billion euros a year in revenue (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2012). It is powered by the “Big 5” leagues, which are made up of England, Germany, Spain, Italy, and France. In terms of sports globally, only the NFL and India’s Cricket Premier League can have higher average attendances than the best-attended European soccer league (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2012). Soccer has a worldwide audience of more than 4 billion viewers per season, in part because of the cultural reinvention England started over 20 years ago. This reinvention was able to claim an impressive cultural and commercial success.

England in the 1980s’s was a period of stadium modernization (Williams, 2006). The main goal was to develop safer, accessible sporting venues, as well as bring in more female fans and fans from ethnic minority backgrounds. The climate of greater inclusion helped sustain generally rising crowds and a positive new spectator climate. This new era made fans realize that professional soccer was no longer just a business, but it became a place for fans to express their identities and grow their self-esteem.

The development of these new stadiums as well as the creation of the European soccer club provided fans with the opportunity to travel Europe more frequently. Fans have become more familiar with many major cities in Europe that they otherwise wouldn’t have seen. This new familiarity of Europe is significant because it potentially plays a large part in the development of a new European identity. Professional soccer fans are genuinely beginning to see themselves as primarily Europeans instead of British (King, 2000).

Social Identity Theory for Both Soccer and Football

Outline

Posted on by
3

Outline

  1. Abstract
  2. Introduction
    1. Research Question: What drives consumption and consumer behavior in the United States?
    2. Thesis: Consumers buy not only because social institutions instill a sense of need rather than want, but also because consumers seek to fulfill a sense of pleasure as well as to craft their ideal version of self, largely by conveying economic and social status and power.
  3. Methodology
    1. Content Analysis – assessing theoretical frameworks
  4. Literature Review
    1. Industrial Revolution/Industrialization
    2. Neoliberalism – individualism and economic implications
    3. Capitalism (Smith, Marx, Bauman, Weber)
    4. Consumption
      1. Colin Campbell: Romanticism
      2. Douglas and Isherwood: Social Relationships
    5. Gap in research
  5. Body
    1. Theoretical Frameworks
      1. Neoliberalism
      2. Treadmill of Production Theory
    2. History of Consumption
      1. Industrialization
      2. Capitalism
      3. Rise in Shopping Malls/Department Stores
      4. Online Shopping
    3. Consumer Behavior/Consumption Today (United States)
    4. Institutions
      1. Economics – Capitalism
        1. Wage Gap/Income Inequality
      2. Political
        1. Connection to economics – power/status
      3. Media/Advertising
        1. Want vs. Need
      4. Fashion
        1. Beauty
        2. Sex
    5. WHY:
      1. False Consciousness (Marx)
      2. Commodity fetishism (Marx)
      3. Conspicuous consumption (Veblen)
    6. Consumption as a Social Problem
      1. Planned obsolescence
      2. Environmental impact of waste (ToP recap)
  6. Conclusion
    1. Excessive consumption exists in the United States.
      1. Recap of WHY overconsumption occurs
    2. Predicted Future
    3. Possible solutions/alternatives to overconsumption

Austin Outline 3/11

Posted on by
3

-Not some catchy hook or anything like that; this is an academic paper. I’m not gonna make anyone want to read it unless they are already interested in the material to begin with.

-Introduction

  • Both evolutionary and revolutionary science can explain social and scientific phenomena
  • But Institutional Economics has thus far only employed Evolutionary science
  • THESIS BABY— It would be better served to apply a more Revolutionary Framework.

-Huh? Evolutionary and Revolutionary theory? The hell are those?

  • Check this out, evolutionary theory
    • Teleology (bauplans)
    • Rejection of purposiveness (Lamarck? Lmao!)
      • Internalist/Externalist models (Popper/Kuhn/Bourdieu)
    • Accumulation of Changes
      • The new Naturalism- Hull
  • Revolutionary theory
    • Veblen’s “matter-of-fact” (empiricist) selection method
    • Purposive AF…if you presume some kind of fixed, universal scientific method (we’ll talk about that later), otherwise, leaves room for systemic ambiguity
    • Incommensurability thesis
      • The infuence on Evo. Theory (Hull’s spacial-temporal limits)

-So what is Institutional Economics?

  • A system of economic thought that fundamentally presupposes economic behavior to be a function not of agents (like neoliberalism or some other stupid theory might) but of institutions
  • Implications for class theory, think about it. This will become important later on.
  • It’s founded on the ideas of the scientific method, which it takes from Darwinian Evolutionary theory in Darwin and then from Hull, Gould, etc in later writers like Laurent and Nightingale.
    • Was a match made from the beginning, when Malthus and old Erasmus Darwin sipped gin together and spit on poor people.
    • So remember the teleology from above? That’s still there. What does it look like? Well, depends on who you ask (Marx, Mill, Schumpeter, etc)
    • It tries to be empirical!!! Hahaha
    • So then, do the changes actually accumulate and lead to substantive change like Darwin said they would?
      • Kinda… but they don’t necessarily come from economics. Society at large can still be evolutionary, but this right here is a real weakness for the evolutionary theory in explaining economic data.
        • Veblen’s conspicuous consumption principle as a nomic mode of evolution
  • In a more modern setting, it looks like this:
    • Super duper sciencey
    • Lots of consideration for sociology (at the end of the day, that’s really what this is)
    • Gradualist approach to economic change and POLICY

-So what about this so-called Revolutionary science? It can be applied to that economic framework? What happens if you do that?

  • Yes it can! Look, in every other field, Evolutionary Science has been influenced to some degree by revolutionary science already
    • PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM BABY
  • So when you make THAT framework the scientific basis for Institutional Economics a lot of cool stuff happens.
    • Remember that teleology? Finally gone. You’re welcome, Warren.
    • Doesn’t even need to be empirical to do so. Lol. Incommensurability thesis coming back to roost.
    • Who needs gradualism? There are still major anomalous ideas– why not admit the paradigm shift that can solve them.
      • Sorry Karl, but this stage theory is neither unidirectional nor irreversible, and that’s why the workers paradise might have missed its chance

-Is that actually better?

  • Well, if you want to really be able to value justification as a scientific achievement, not reduce it to “ad hoc explanation”
  • It is ok to be relativistic, allowing the perceptual incommensurability isn’t gonna kill anyone
    • Especially not anyone whose perspective is a function of an institution
  • Avoided the dead end that Hull was worried about.

-So Conclusion time? Yeah.

Austin Annotated Bib to Date-3/11

Posted on by
Reply

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum 6 (1) (Mar 1991): 3.

This is a huge component for my evaluation of the differential scientific methods of evolutionary and revolutionary theory, as it presents a lucid critique of both systems in light of Bourdieu’s scientific framework, not to mention the broader system of power and capital in which it fits. Alone, the Bourdiusian Capital Theory is a tremendous mechanism for explaining the modern institutional economic framework (See Di Muzio, below) but coupled with the Paradigm Theory from which it benefits, ultimately informs and sustains my overall thesis that the scientific function of Institutional Economics must operate according to a Kuhnian revolutionary structure.

Carroll, Joseph. 2015. Evolutionary social theory. Style 49 (4): 512.

This article opens a framework for the application of evolutionary theory to the social sciences at large. Importantly, it follows on the framework Samuelson establishes (with origins in Veblen’s conception of society, re: a series of overlapping and interrelated systems). Carroll’s system falls more in line with the Gouldian notion of evolutionary theory, that is, of punctuated equilibrium, than with the traditional evolutionary theory as Veblen or Marx would have understood it. When read in conjunction with The Structure of Evolutionary Theory it effectively serves as a case study in the paradigm dynamic I advocate in this paper.

Di Muzio, Tim. 2015. The plutonomy of the 1%: Dominant ownership and conspicuous consumption in the new gilded age. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43 (2): 492.

This article ties together the systems of Bourdieu, Galbraith, and Veblen. It does a lot of other stuff but that isn’t particularly important for me. In short, what is important is that Veblen’s system—institutional economics—functioned according to the principle of Conspicuous Consumption– which as I can show below is a function of the Darwinian Evolutionary theory underpinning it. Galbraith constrained the theory to the affluent societies in which the leisure class can exist and operate, and then, using Bourdieu’s idea of symbolic capital, Di Muzio explains Conspicuous Consumption by the leisure class as a part of the broader power dynamic. This is important for two reasons—most obviously, it can pinpoint the functions of institutional economics as a science, Di Muzio’s own predictions with regard to social and ecological welfare and example of such. But, more importantly, this is an example of the Kuhnian-Bourdieusian paradigm at work. In my paper, it will be shown exactly how the “realm of the knowable” and paradigm perspectivism function to make works of exactly this nature possible.

Hull, David. 1988. Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This book serves as an overview of the evolutionary theory of science since Darwin. Much of the body of my paper will be assessing the ideas brought forth in this book as they apply to the scientific functions of institutional economics (i.e. systematic ambiguity, internalism/externalism, token inheritance/paradigm functions, etc) Some particular ideas from Hull compliment my theory, such as the role of teleology in evolutionary science, and the lack of a typical or atypical science, and the nature of perceptual incommensurability.

*Notably, much of Hull’s work, as well as Kuhn’s (see below) is expanded upon and critiqued in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen J. Gould. I will be using that intractably large, dense tome in sections, which will be added to this bibliography in time.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1954. The structure of scientific revolutions.

This is not only my favorite book in the world, but it is very much the basis for the theory I am applying in this paper. Long story short, this is where revolutionary theory originates. Kuhn didn’t apply it to nonempirical sciences, he thought it was implicit in their very nature. SSR is the blunt weapon I can use to hammer out the nature of revolutionary and evolutionary theory on institutional economics.

To synopsize Kuhn: scientific progress actually follows a pattern typically seen in the humanities and arts. Central ideas undergird lasting paradigms. Accepting a paradigm allows for normal science to occur (akin to the archetypal works of a given art style or social scientific theory). Only upon the successive discovery of anomalies– scientific achievements that cannot be explained in light of the paradigmatic assumptions– at which point, major anomalies serve as exemplars for new paradigms to emerge. The ideas of successive paradigms are not necessarily commensurable, even if they use identical terms. This theory has been instrumental in the philosophy of science since Kuhn, and is the core of the theory I want to apply to institutional economics.

Laurent, John, and John Nightingale. 2001. Darwinism and evolutionary economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222004&db=nlebk&AN=75209&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

This work offers a total overview of institutional economics as the field has come to more integrally accept the foundations of Darwinian Evolutionary Science as the scientific method at its own center– Or, to more call it by a simpler term, Evolutionary Economics. Most importantly, Laurent and Nightingale differentiate advanced evolutionary theory, as applied by Hull above, for example, from the strictly Darwinian origins– the absence of bauplans, token exchange, etc– but not from the revolutionary science of Kuhn or later Gould. That is exactly the hole that my work will look to partially fill.

Reydon, Thomas, and Paul Hoyningen-Huene. 2010. Discussion: Kuhn’s evolutionary analogy in the structure of scientific revolutions and “the road since structure.”. Philosophy of Science 77 (3) (Jul 2010): 469.

This article presents a useful articulation of Kuhn’s work. Nothing that would make any sense without a lot of context. Just read the paper.

Ruse, Michael. 2008. Charles darwin. Blackwell great minds., ed. Steven Nadler. Vol. 5. Oxford: Blackwell.

This is an overview of Darwin’s scientific and philosophical system. I can apply this to Veblen, Samuelson, and the Laurent and Nightingale book above because this is literally just a reader to Darwinian theory. What more is there to say?

Samuels, Warren J. 1999. Founding of institutional economics : The leisure class and sovereignty. London, GBR: Routledge.

Samuels is the best. This book outlines the Veblenian/Darwinian origins of Institutional Economics (and importantly distinguishes that field from the like-named and contemporary Institutional Economics of German origin) As should be abundantly clear by now if you are reading this annotated bibliography, Institutional economics employs darwinian evolutionary theory (and then it is called evolutionary economics) This book is what makes that argument.

Samuels, Warren J. 1993. Thorstein Veblen and the place of science. Society 30 (2) (Jan 1993) 76.
And this is just a more thorough look at Veblen’s adaptation of Darwinian theory in particular. Most of it also contained and expanded on in the other Samuelson piece. Whatever. This is the first piece I read and is largely the inspiration for the paper I’m writing now, for whatever that’s worth.

Paper outline V 1.0

Posted on by
5

I’s sorry to say, the word formatting did not survive the transition to this sight, I have done my best to make the outline as coherent as possible.

  •  Introduction
    • Hook: I robot Movie vs book.
      • Science fiction vs science fantasy
    • Discussion of the current state of Smart cars/ autonomous vehicles
      • Technical issues
        • Smart cars vs actual drivers
        • Some technical solutions
      • Current events
    • Thesis
      • Ethical dimensions of Autonomous vehicles
        • Where do they fit in the current ethical paradigm?
        • How should they be programmed to benefit humanity?
  • Literature review
    • Major studies of smart cars
      • As a neo-trolley problem
      • Bonnefon, Schariff, and Rahwan
    • Opening a space for Philosophical discussion (may be moved to 2.e)
      • A response to Bonnefon, Schariff, and Rahwan and others
      • Ethics is an important study of philosophy, will become increasingly important as machines change in their abilities and roles
    • Looking at machine ethics (first theoretical framework)
      • A study off autonomous moral agents
        • Automata which carry the capacity for moral decision making
      • Machine ethical spectrum
        • Operational, vs functional morality vs full moral agency
        • Machine ethics as engineering ethics
    • Utilitarianism (Second theoretical framework)
      • Utilitarianism 101
        • Greatest happiness principle
        • Peter Singer- Marginal utility and Utilitarianism
    • Legal discussion (possible third framework- mostly here to allow for final discussion)
  • Methods
    • Philosophical argumentation
    • Another defense of philosophy in an engineering discussion
  • The main event
    • Defining smart cars in a machine ethics perspective
      • Limited information capacity
        • Can define people and vehicles (trouble with grey areas)
        • Still developing (refer to I robot Book)
      • Informational capacity and processing capability defining ethical sensitivity
        • Smart cars, in their current and ideal forms, will have little capacity for higher reasoning
      • High autonomy (depending on design)
        • Ideal smart cars will not need drivers
        • Trucking and other monotonous driving tasks can be safely re assigned
        • Smart cars with obligatory driver override defeats the purpose
          • See I robot Movie
      • High autonomy and low ethical sensitivity make a unique position
        • On inside edge of functional ethics
        • Need to have the capacity to make simple ethical decisions in crash scenarios
    • Why utilitarianism?
      • Other systems require some semblance of sentience
      • No other system allows for a simplified understanding and low information density
        • Smart Cars can only detect size, shape, number
      • Smart cars require simplified Utilitarianism
        • The low capacity for distinction means that cars can only save maximum number of lives
        • In this way, the car is both a better and worse utilitarian
          • Cannot distinguish value of individuals (double edged sword)
        • Cars can only choose by number, saving human lives becomes a priority
    • Responding to major criticisms
      • People should have agency
        • Yes and no
          • Agency in choosing their crash scenario is not feasible in a smart car dominated world.
          • People should be able to choose how their cars responds
            • Freedom of everyone trumps guaranteed safety (see America!)
            • Have our Cake and eat it too (opt-out system)
            • Or tax/ insurance incentives
      • Gaming the system
        • Loading smart cars to trip sensors
        • Tricking the car into thinking that there are more passengers
          • A plausible scenario
          • Not needed in the event of an opt-out system
          • Would be a problem for a tax or insurance incentive
          • Other methods of detection available
      • Cyber security
        • Very important consideration
          • Possible hijacking of cars and tapping into crash algorithms
        • A more pressing problem for smart cars in general
        • Strong cyber security should be required in all smart cars, regardless of their crash programming
    • Codifying Utilitarian Cars
      • Making It a standard in software engineering requirements (See three laws of robotics)
      • Tax incentives or other compliance systems
        • May be the standard Gov. response
        • Could be done at the federal level through administrative agencies
      • Legislation
        • Least likely possibility in the current American climate
        • Could see laws/standards come from other bodies (European Union)
  • Conclusion
    • Overview of argument and paper in general
    • Points for further research and discussion
      • How would we program Utilitarian cars?
      • Are there other machines or technologies which could use utilitarian ethics?
      • How do things change when the car has a semblance of sentience?
      • How close are we to implementing the three laws of robotics?