|
|
|||
| Eyal Pavell | |||
|
Key Words: Globalisation, unconscious conflict, inter group dynamics, power, identity, culture, organisations
The unconscious fantasies projected onto the increasingly vocal and violent anti-globalisation protest have far- reaching implications for global organisations. A group analytical approach can be applied to understand the unconscious dynamics operating in the discourse around globalisation, and the challenges faced by global organisations as they struggle to contend with the non-rational forces from without and from within.
Globalisation as a symbolic construct is explored also in terms of its function as a receptacle for projected utopian, or ‘messianic’ fantasies (in Bion’s use of the term). Implications pertaining to power, identity and politics are explored from the vantage point of the groups that are at the core of the debate and protest over globalisation, including the anti-globalisation protesters, global corporations as organisational and symbolic entities, their leaders, their employees, and the general consumer population.
The anti-globalisation protest increasingly permeates public discourse and the cultural imagination, and global organisations are faced with paradoxical demands of managing their symbolic expression (their brand and public image) and their use of power in face of a revolt against power. As the anti- globalisation message intensifies, so does the omnipotence that is projected onto global organisations, while these organisations themselves are feeling increasingly vulnerable. Their leaders must deal with questions of power and leadership that are being continuously redefined on moral, ideological and political grounds. Employees of these organisations, as well as the consumers of their products, appear virtually silent in the unfolding drama. Nevertheless, they find themselves in the midst of a conflict that touches on deep- seated anxieties that are expressed through a variety of symptoms and re-enactments that are described in this paper.
Understanding the symptoms and addressing the powerful unconscious anxieties and conflicts that affect the image of the global organisation, its leaders and its employees will become increasingly critical in order to maintain a healthy level of organisational functioning. This paper will examine some of the dynamics that are already taking place in reaction to the unfolding conflict surrounding globalisation and their implications for global organisations. The various manifestations of the anti- globalisation protest and the organisational responses to it, both real and hypothesised, will be evaluated in the context of the psychological effect on the organisation, its employees and its consumers. BEGINNING:
Until one day in November 1999, when violent street riots broke out in Seattle to protest the World Trade Organisation meeting, globalisation was one of those words that not many people would really object to. “Global Village” was said tongue in cheek at times, but it was generally a forward- looking, hope filled notion. Utopia for some, for the rest just one of those uncontested notions, and not much to think about. But that all changed with a prefix as anti-globalisation entered the public discourse with a loud, violent protest. Suddenly, globalisation became politicised.
We see pictures of street riots of anti-globalisation protesters: anarchists, socialists, animal rights activists, peaceniks, Luddites, and Anti-Capitalists. Whoever they are, under the loose umbrella of ‘anti- globalisation’ they have succeeded in chasing some of the world’s most powerful leaders to remote parts of the Canadian Rockies or to isolated islands in the Arabian Gulf. (I refer here to the G7/G8, World Trade Organisation and IMF meetings that were relocated following the violent street protests in the past few years).
Fast food chains such as McDonald’s have been targeted regularly. Some may also know of protests at Oil rigs, boycotts of ESSO, Nestle and others. Bill Gates and the economist Milton Friedman had pies thrown at their faces. There are also legal actions taken against corporations and even a proposal to levy a small tax on international monetary transactions as a globalisation tax of sorts. From popular writers such as Naomi Klein and Arundati Roy, to university departments and a myriad of websites, there are also a growing number of intellectuals writing and speaking against globalisation, both in the developed world and in the developing countries. There is localised activism in the form of numerous student organisations and local community groups organised in the vein of “Towns against Walmart” or “No to le Big Mac”.
The protests and boycotts are the visible enactments of the anti- globalisation movement that have made headlines. But, they are, of course, what a psychoanalytic framework views as ‘symptoms’, with the understanding that what we see is simply the outward manifestation of an underlying dynamic-- a sign that there is more of a story behind it.
As the anti- globalisation movement is gaining strength and attention, economic, cultural and political theories have been offering their perspectives. There is an intellectual debate that continues on the pages of journals and the corridors of academia and policy forums for and against free markets, about the benefits and perils of free trade, tariffs, debt reduction and the like. There has been an increase in dialogue between the two identified sides (Global NGO’s and corporations on one hand, and the forces opposed to their practices on the other hand). These have been focused on business and legal issues, and in some cases have brought some tangible changes.
However, the story of the anti- globalisation movement is not simply about the street protests or smashed McDonalds store windows. That is the easy front. A much more complicated situation has developed as the anti- globalisation movement has stirred thoughts, emotions and conflicts in everyone who is in any way touched by it. It is emotions that drove people to the streets and compelled the World Trade Organisation to flee cities and that gave rise and credence to conspiracy theories and stereotypes that have less and less to do with reality. Some serious emotions and fantasies, beyond the economic case for or against globalisation, need to be understood en route to working through the issues and resolving the conflict. This paper will explore the psychodynamics of a debate that is simmering in many corners of the world and that matters to organisations more and more. The psychological experience and dynamics in this interaction will be examined from the vantage point of the various players in the debate, and applying a group- psychoanalytic framework.
As anti- globalisation has become an issue, many invisible fronts have opened up within society and within ourselves. In addition to the obvious participants in this drama (the protesters and the representatives of corporations and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s), there are the millions of employees of global and multinational organisations, and an even larger silent majority of consumers who also carry with them conflicting feelings around the issues it raises. Applying a group analytic approach by proxy, considering the millions of people that make up this ‘group’ has its limitations, but also its opportunities. This massive group, and its constant regroupings, are organised around some Work (W) functions. In the sense of the word as Bion introduced the term, these are the cognisant, articulated tasks agreed to be achieved by its members. In the context of the players in the globalisation arena, it may include the IMF policy makers working with national banks on debt reduction, or the local communities involved in development programs for clean water. It also includes the workers of a textile factory who are there to produce t-shirts and the company who, in return, will pay their salary and provide appropriate working conditions. As consumers, we expect the manufacturers of products to supply us with goods for our money, and we do the Work of shopping.
In the Bionic framework, Work is only one aspect of the group’s existence, one that is constantly “obstructed, diverted, and on occasion assisted by” (Bion 1952) mental and emotional activities that operate under non-rational basic assumption. Bion has described three basic assumption groups, dependency, pairing, and flight-fight. Tourquet added the fourth basic assumption of Oneness, and Lawrence, Bain and Gould have proposed the fifth basic assumption of Me-ness. These basic assumptions relate in different forms to the fantasies, emotions and dynamics that group members’ experience. The dynamics and basic assumptions that operate cannot be explored without understanding globalisation as the organising fantasy on the giant projective screen in this vast, leaderless, fluid, and ever-changing group.
What are the fantasies that globalisation evokes? Globalisation is the modern reincarnation of the movements that aim to realise the wish for a unity. Throughout history, the idea of global unity has had a massive influence on history and has been one of the central organising forces of society. The notion of one world united has been taken in many directions in various organisational guises. These include religious ones, such as crusades and Jihads to unify the world under one religion, ideological and economic movements such as Communism, various forms of nationalism and even linguistic movements such as Esperanto.
Unfortunately, as we think of these examples of movements for a united world, we see that they have been at best fruitless, more often disastrous, never achieving their goals and carrying severe negative side effects, even when intentions were positive to start with. The emotional zeal that these movements evoke in their followers, as well as in their opponents, speak to the power of this fantasy-wish. The irrationality that often accompanies such emotions unsurprisingly intensifies when it occurs on a mass level.
The positive view of globalisation sees it as a force for hope and human betterment, an embodiment of the primal fantasy of symbiotic ‘oneness’ and utopia. The personal striving for one-ness within oneself, of continuity and of coherence as the cornerstone of identity, the wish for symbiosis and ‘oneness’-- be it with another person, a community, a God, or a country, is what feeds the notion of a Global Village as the embodiment of the way to utopia. As a benevolent projection, but nevertheless a projection, it carries irrational elements of messianic omnipotence, along with magical thinking that fuels the passion for it. Historical allegories for a united world abound. Remaining in the present, a personal favourite of mine is the oft-quoted observation, in support of globalisation, that “no two countries with McDonald’s restaurants had ever fought a war with each other.” The power of this statement occurs not so much because it is true, and as far as I know it is, but because of the ease in which a cause and effect relationship is established and tagged onto the fantasy of globalisation and global brands as a cause or progenitor of world peace.
As observed from the other side of the debate, most explicitly owned by the anti- globalisation activists, globalisation is seen as the creator of corporations and NGO’s that are aggressively taking over the world for the sake of profit. These global entities are the receptacles of negative omnipotent projections, the ‘bad’ messiahs. These organisations are seen as having powers over governments and rights that humans do not have such as free movement across borders. They are looked upon as greedy and the root of all evil, extractors of natural resources and human capital and, importantly, biodiversity itself , or as described in the online ‘Free Encyclopaedia’ Wikipedia “rhetorically likened to locusts and rapists.”
It would be tempting to divide the players in the ‘group’ neatly into 2 virtual groups representing the two sides of the fantasy. However, this would be an oversimplification and a stagnification of a highly dynamic situation, a convenient splitting defence rather than a serious attempt to gain a real understanding. Instead, I would like to outline a snapshot of the experiences of the various ‘group members’ to understand the powers at work.
Who are the members of this ‘group’ and what are their experiences?
SLIDE1: “Group Members”:
- Global organisations and their leaders - Anti- globalisation protesters: violent - non-violent - Employees - Consumers - Consultants
The most visible group are the protesters: street activists, anarchists, socialists, animal rights activists, peaceniks, anti- GM activists and Luddites. They are sometimes called Anti-Capitalists. Many of the street activists in the forefront of the movement are young, first world individuals, but there are a growing numbers of working class people from developing countries. And, as the issue enters the public discourse, intellectuals and various political activists are taking part as well. The one common denominator of the anti- globalisation movement is the view that The World Bank, the IMF, the UN and multinational corporations, and capitalism itself are overtaking the world economically, culturally, politically and aesthetically. From this perspective the multinationals are more powerful than governments and successful in undermining local decision making processes and the sovereignty of nations. A central argument against globalisation is that local cultures and ways of life are being taken over by a monoculture, while their local resources and livelihoods are being exploited, and their culture made to become a cheap facsimile of the west, the privileged world, itself undergoing a process of intense cultural homogenisation and descent into blandness.
As is the case with many revolutionary movements, there is a strong element of idealisation of the issues—i.e., the non- globalised, non-modern world that is being romanticised as a paradise lost. The roots of this experience of the group as a threat to individual distinctiveness takes its derivation from Freud (1921). Selfhood and the separation- individuation process were developed into a theoretical foundation in the psychological development theory by Mahler. A Jungian may call this projection a manifestation of the mythical fear of being taken over, engulfed and swallowed up by the entity of the omnipotent multinational corporation. In addition to fear and aggression, other emotions can also be expected to show up. The fantastic entity of the powerful global organisation and its primal authority as elicitors of emotions are most likely to carry a heavy Oedipal twist, including emotions of envy, guilt and aggressive competitiveness. And as oedipal dramas go, there is no reason this one should be any less complicated.
The other visible ‘group’ members, on the other side of the debate, are the leaders and representatives of multinational corporations and organisations, including global NGO’s such as the IMF and the World Bank. These have been regularly targeted by the anti- globalisation protest movement, and are another group who experience themselves to be in a tough spot. On one hand, they experience omnipotence that is supported by material wealth, and the benefits of power and of access to world leaders that is undoubtedly a source of much psychological ego pleasure. Supporting this is the benign projections of globilisation and capitalism as the messengers of benevolence to the world, beefed up with a barrage of findings showing the benefits of free trade, genetically modified foods, IMF help and privatisation schemes. However, this is only one side of the story. In the past few years, as anti- globalisation became a cause, the representatives of the multinationals are increasingly seen as the ‘bad guys’, the root of greed and evil, the colonisers of indigenous cultures and the operators of sweat–shops. The experience of projected omnipotence is now more complicated, and the strain is beginning to show: in a survey conducted last year by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (Agence Presse, Feb 1, 2002) a third of CEO’s of global corporations cited the anti- globalisation movement as a serious threat.
Next, are the less visible group members, that represent a much larger group. One subgroup includes people who are socially and politically active in non-violent, and often localised groupings around the issue. This includes “Students Against Sweatshops” or the citizens of towns like Warrenton, Virginia, who marched peacefully under the banner of “Another town against Walmart”. I have seen this very close to my own home in London as the local citizens council barred the opening of a Starbucks in the neighbourhood “because chain-stores are not wanted here”.
Another important, and vast, subgroup consists of the millions of employees of multinationals and NGO’s. These people do not generally protest on the streets of Seattle or Jakarta, nor do they write articles on webzines or lobby their local politician. Yet, they embody the debate and the conflicts at their cores and they sit right inside the organisations. As the anti-globalisation agenda is heard, employees cannot but experience various levels of conflict. On one hand, there are a lot of good reasons for people to be working in a multinational company. Materially it often means higher wages and a better standard of living. It also comes with a host of fantasies projected onto the brand that have to do with taking part in the wealth that these companies represent and a sense of symbolic belonging in a materialistically richer world, fantasies that are constantly reinforced in the media.
Yet, the other side of the sense of participation in this global party and a partaking in its symbolic wealth does not come without conflict. The emergence of a visible anti- globalisation movement has served as a projective ‘hook’ for what previously was likely to have been a more personal dissonance and ambiguity around cultural identity, power relations, hope and fear. In the rich countries, the issue is likely to have stirred up emotions around class. For the more financially privileged individuals, narcissistic feelings of grandiosity conflicted with guilt are likely. For the less financially well-off, aggression, envy and a fight against dependency can be easily aroused in response to a feeling of being overtaken.
For the millions of multinational workers employed by global organisations in the developing world, this is especially pertinent in light of the recent anti-Western sentiment that is very closely associated with corporate brands whose advertisements and factories are in many cases the most regular contact with symbols of the West. The fantasy of being swallowed up by the rich-world’s culture also means, by default, that their own culture is made to be lesser, giving rise to feelings of rage, or envy. Associating western brands with western culture, can take other spins too. Political, and often national and religious elements, are brought into the debate around globalisation by masses who feel on the margins and peripheries of the rich world and far removed from the material profits that the global village presents. Going to work daily in a company that symbolises the threat means that the conflict around cultural identity is experienced daily and brought into the organisation.
How is their reaction shaping up?
Some take the path of intensifying their sense of local cultural or religious identity, in which case allegiance to their employer, the symbolic ‘other’ is severely compromised. This may be seen in symbolic acts such as traditional garb, or speaking local languages, increased labour activism, passive aggressive symbolic protests, or pronounced splits between the locals and the expat employees. Visible protests by employees against globalisation are rare— but the private experience of sympathising with the cause is nevertheless there, and with increasing effects on organisations. For many in the developing countries, the emergence of the anti-globalisation movement is looked at with great interest and with much sympathy- for it provides a framework for some strong feelings and a sense of belonging and identification with a group. As an example of how this plays out also in the rich world, we can consider the unprecedented surge of shareholder activism, recorded at record levels in the past year, or the revolts against so called Fat Cat remuneration, that in the UK is beginning to translate into law. It is all part of the same movement.
Another even larger group that is taking part in the debate is one that most of us in this room probably belong to: the consumers. We can afford many brand name products. We have seen the rise of free trade and globalisation along with a rise in our own standard of living. For most of our lives we were happy thinking that one world, global village is a good thing. When we travel to a foreign country, we may feel a sense of comfort in seeing the familiar hotel chain, soft drink and petrol station. We trust them because we know them.
But, things have become a little more complicated since we began hearing about the anti-globalisation movement when we saw the Seattle and Verona riots and began hearing about the burning of McDonald’s branches and the case against globalisation.
The concept of anti- globalisation may have resonated on several levels for us and has provided a projective hook for some conflicts. Some of us may have occasionally been a little uncomfortable with the power of ‘big business’ on some level, or, we may after all not fully trust genetically modified foods. On vacation we are likely to buy familiar brand name products we know from home, be glad that our credit cards are accepted everywhere and know that a can of Coke will not give us food poisoning. Yet at the same time we are not always that happy to see the familiar chain stores in places that we hoped would be exotic and we may complain that “everywhere looks the same”. The incongruity of seeing luxury brand name goods sold on street markets for a few pennies, and that cost us 1000’s of percent more at home also raises some questions about the logic and fairness of the economic system.
We are mostly comfortable in a co-existence of dependency on the economic system, symbolised conspicuously by the brands. Most of us have not taken to the streets or boycotted ESSO or burned down a McDonalds – a corporation’s worst nightmares, fantasies of loss of power or annihilation. Yet, consumers have begun to think of consumerism in terms of the paradigms of power that the anti-globalisation movement has introduced. The extent of the psychological mobilisation of the silent majority was made clear to me when I realised that the de- facto manifesto of the anti-globalisation movement, a book by the Canadian author Naomi Klein titled “No Logo” has been a global best seller for many many months, often in the top place in the ‘Business Books’ category. Millions of people have been buying this book and have become knowledgeable about the arguments against globalisation. They have entered the debate, and they carry it with them also when they go to work, in many cases for the same employers that have been vilified. What is going through their hearts and minds? Split identity? Guilt? A sense of power? Or of disempowerment? Perhaps fear of being attacked for belonging to multinationals? Probably all of the above.
How can we not give a thought to our place in the world of global corporations versus the street protesters? How can we not but ponder, on some unconscious level, the fact that we are, after all, the people upon whom the companies depend for their existence. Even if we are not politically active, we too have begun to understand that there is a real issue on our hands with no simple answers. While quiet and well behaved, there are signs the silent majority are also acting out the ambivalence and conflict. While most of the silent majority’s actions do not make the headlines, organisations need to pay attention much more closely, not just to the protests or the boycotts, but also to the subtler signs of discontent. These, for instance, include avoiding brand names as a fashion, or bootlegging and internet ‘freeswapping’ – its rewards perhaps going beyond the joys of free music to include a sense of ‘taking from the rich’, a little bit of vengeance and aggression along with a free tune.
With the articulation of the issues and the cognitive framework provided, millions have looked for, and are increasingly finding, ways to organise their anxieties, and to varying degrees placing them in an intellectual – political framework for their emotions. How worried should their employers be about the conflicted sense of loyalty of their employees and consumers?
In the next section, I will outline the dynamics of the debate so far. From the most visible actions and counteractions that have been taking place, to those that while less visible, are potentially even more powerful.
The debate so far has taken many interesting twists and turns. I characterise the dynamics of the actions and reactions, the weapons used in the debate, according to the following:
SLIDE 2:
Fight- Flight Fragmentation and consolidation Enjoinment
Fight and Flight Dynamics: Under this category, fall the most visible manifestations of the anti- globalisation debate: the street protests and storefront burning, the economic boycotts and the localised activism as examples of ‘fight’. The most ubiquitous responses from the global corporate and NGO side has been flight from the scene, e.g., relocating summits, maintaining a low profile, isolation and camouflage of their presence (e.g., non displaying of corporate brand on factories). Naomi Klein has used the metaphor of fencing- creating barriers to fence-in or fence out the ‘other’, in this context, those who have the power of globalisation behind them and those who are excluded from it.
In more sublimated ways, the fight and flight dynamics have been acted out on economic and legal grounds. Opponents of globalisation have been working rather resourcefully on local levels, e.g., to change labour laws and mobilise workers, to promote environmental legislation, minimum wages and preferential terms for local businesses. NGOs and corporations have also responded in various manifestations of fight. These include media blitzes, and intensified lobbying of governments. There have also been academic and ethical reactions in the form of op eds and books to build a case for globalisation and its benefits (e.g., The Truth about Globalisation, one of the main points of which is that the worst factories are almost always locally owned, not multinationals). In some cases there has also been a moral offensive- where hard work is portrayed as a moral value and the protesters are seen as often- unemployed or unsuccessful and are portrayed as morally inferior.
Fragmentation and Consolidation: There is a huge difference in the modus operandi of the anti-globalisation protesters and global organisations. As companies have increased their strength by merging, expanding and centralising, the strength of the anti- globalisation movement has been in its fragmentation and decentralisation. Much of the organisation of the street protests and the boycotts was done through the internet. Organisation has been characterised by temporary structures (Klein, 2002)—action committees that come together for a cause or event and disperse after a few weeks. One activist explains: “Corporations are like giant tankers, we are like a school of fish. We respond quickly, they can’t.” The organisation of the anti- globalisation movement is born on, and mirrors, that of the world wide web, with no centre but always connecting. Klein also sees the radical fragmentation and decentralisation as a “brilliant response and adaptation” to corporate concentration and consolidation.
This is the context by which I understand the reaction of corporations and the general establishment. In some cases they have displayed a hysterical response to the decentralisation of the protesters. For instance, in protests that took place in Philadelphia in 2000, police began arresting everybody with a cell phone or anyone who was jay- walking (pedestrians crossing the street against the traffic lights). This is no more than a neurotic response, very tempting perhaps, but completely ineffectual. From a psychoanalytic viewpoint we also understand the act of structuring as an effort to reduce anxiety. This type of reaction demonstrates a: how anxious the organisation is, and b: how the organisation is driven by its own neurosis to act in a completely ineffective way.
Junctures such as the one described point to a real chasm between the two overt sides of the debate. I tie the different understandings of the need for structure also to some of the reactions of the critics of the anti-globalisation movement who see the lack of centralisation as a lack of leadership, and have predicted the demise of the movement since “it doesn’t stand for anything”. The absence of a symbolic entity, a name, is extremely disarming to organisations that have always thought that naming- the organisation itself, the brand, the organisational structure and the job titles, or the celebrity who promotes the brand—is the cornerstone of success and power. Yet what we see with the current anti- globalisation movement is that it has many names but lacks a name—Lacan would undoubtedly have a lot to say about this. It is also notable that the so called manifesto of the anti-globalisation movement is titled as a negative- it is called simply ‘No Logo’.
One of the intriguing aspects of the debate around globalisation is the level of passion around it is far greater than the level of understanding of the issues – and of the term itself. I have pondered this as I began writing this paper and naming its title. I use the term “anti- globalisation” for the title of this paper fully aware that it does not satisfactorily describe who the people are or what the cause is. I share with others who have written about and debated the issues, the notion that there does not seem to be a term to capture or explain “it”- one either tries to incorporate the full breadth of issues, from environmentalism to agrarian reform to feminism, to anti-Americanism, and is left with too many words, or one uses a word that is ultimately reductionistic and simplistic.
This intangibility, the inability to name has a peculiar psychological grip when it carries with it a sense of psychological experience and affect. I am reminded of Christopher Bollas’ terming of the ‘unthought known’- the “unarticulated elements of psychic life..” representing an uncanny “aesthetic moment” that evokes a sense of anticipation of transformation by something that is “itself an ego memory of the ontogenetic process (and that) inspires the subject with a reverential attitude towards it.” (Bollas, 1987). I suspect that this is a similar experience to that of the activists who receive email invitations from groups whose names they have never heard of, or causes that they have not really thought about, yet sense that they are somehow cathected to and referring to the same thing, enough to make them join a protest. The emotional impact described by the anti- globalisation activists is quite striking. The descriptions of participation are described in highly emotive terms with a Euphoric sense of connection (e.g., the book 5 days that Shook the World, by Jeremy Sinclair). It is the power of the thing itself, unconstrained by a word, by the secondary process if you will, that is a particularly powerful projective screen for the intense fantasies that it attracts. In this way, it can become all things to all people and a variety of causes.
It is also interesting to note that there have never been protests in favour of globalisation, in the way that people express their support for other causes. I think part of this is that there is not yet a name for this movement. Once the movement does have a name, will it will lose much of its power to evoke fantasy and emotions? Would it begin its demise?
The lack of a name, and the resistance to the visible and the structured is taken to the extremes by some of the anti- globalisation theorists who have incorporated various critical readings to oppose what is termed as “the tyranny of number”—any global measurement of people or profits at all. In essence, they call for doing away with the very basis of capitalism. How can an organisation as we know it ever agree to this, or even understand it? How can it deal with the invisible and the non- quantifyable?
Enjoinment: There is a third interesting dynamic in the conflict around globalisation, which I term enjoinment. It is a phenomena by which the anti- globalisation activists and the corporate world adopt the symbols and signs of the other. This takes shape in several forms. From the anti- globalisation perspective, there is ‘adbusting’: the whitewashing of advertisements to parody the brand. We also have demonstrators dressing up with brand style logos. On the other is what Klein calls ‘culture jamming, or “When Patriarchy Gets Funky” when brands promote themselves as radical, hip, or even subversive. Some examples include ‘Revolution Cola’, Slacker ads for clothing, or the Bennetton ad campaign promoting diversity. It is how you interpret these branding efforts that will determine their intent: are they no more than a marketers reading of contemporary tastes, or are they in fact a co-opting of the anti- globalisation agenda by confusing the issues and the identities. It tries to incorporate the other by neutralising the argument: ‘I agree with you, so you have nothing to fight against’. From the others side, of course, it is seen as a cynical attempt to co-opt or to colonise the cause.
In a further twist, several of the anti-globalisation protesters are waving the banner that they represent the true globalised world. We also are seeing increased shareholder participation, i.e., protesting from the inside of the corporate structure, and using corporate tools against corporate policies, that is reaching new levels of activism in corporate governance. On the individual level, too, there is the example of the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, one of the main targets of the anti-globalisation movement, who has joined the movement against globalisation and has recently written a book criticising its current form and the policies of the NGO’s.
The proliferation of corporate moves toward environmentalist friendly symbols (e.g., supporting farmers, recycling, and promoting fair trade labels) and Corporate Responsibility Officers is another example of the blurring of boundaries. We see the establishment of ‘Corporate Responsibility Officers, and in various community and environmentally friendly labels.
From the forces opposed to globalisation, there is the phenomenon of copying the branding techniques, a paradoxical emulation of the very thing they oppose. As a recent example, consider the recent launch of Mecca Cola- an alternative carbonated drink that is produced in France and marketed to Muslims around the world. The reason for its launch is purely symbolic, as a rejection of corporate/ American colonialism that also coincided with the build up to the war in Iraq. The reason for its record- breaking success is not its price, or its taste, but rather a sense of identity and a religious and political statement. The brand also donates 10% of the profits to the Palestinian cause.
While soft drinks companies are discussing the economic impact and market share issues, they may be ignoring the real threats: first, it brings to the surface the linking of global brand to a political/ religious cause, a real no-no. Even more importantly, the donation of profits in its symbolic rejection of the motive for profit, the underlying basis of capitalism. It will be a minefield for corporations to enter either of these arenas, which are completely antithetical to how they operate, or, indeed, exist, and which they are hardly capable of responding to.
In many ways the debate is played out with a prototypically post modern twist. Understanding postmodernism as a sensibility that rejects unity, order, classification and any ‘Grand Narrative’ (Klages, 2003) as an organising explanation of the world. Capitalism in this context has particularly inspired Frederick Jameson in his seminal work about the post modern. I do not say his ‘definition’ of the post-modern, because the post modern defies definition, even of itself, in way that parallels that which I have described in this particular debate.
The conflict between the West and the rest of the world is often seen as a clash of civilisations, with modernity, i.e., global democracy and capitalism, facing a standoff with the forces of pre modernity and irrationality which is how religions are often seen by some critics in the west. But perhaps it is not a battle between modernity and pre-modernity, but a battle between modernity and the post-modern. In this reading, having observed the power of the fragmented, the intangible and the pastiche (the borrowing of symbols) the anti- globalisation movement appears to have set the agenda.
Where do we go from here?
As I tried to show, core conflicts carrying intense emotions and existential fears have become attached to the loosely- understood, yet ontologically real, term of anti- globalisation. Yet, these are not sufficiently understood by organisations. While the protests and boycotts are seen as visible threats, it is the psychological dynamics that are more difficult to deal with and that will ultimately shape the relationships between organisations, their brands and their leaders, their employees and the general public.
Organisations have never been particularly effective at dealing with emotions and unconscious conflicts. The complexity of the debate around globalisation means that they face another challenge that they may not be equipped to respond to. In order to move beyond this conflict, I believe that a psychoanalytically- informed way of work is especially well positioned to facilitate a dialogue. It can do so by recognising the silent members and surfacing the existential fantasies behind the fears of all members and the emotional drivers behind the actions and counter-actions.
The following guidelines can serve as an initial framework for psychoanalytically-guided consultancy and facilitation of the debate around globalisation: · Ensuring that all participants, vocal and silent, visible and invisible, are proactively engaged in the dialogue, i.e., not just wait for the overt signs of acting out. · Facilitating a dialogue that draws out the real issues – fears, hopes, fantasies of all sides. As consultants we need to lead the discussion away from simplification and splitting of the debate, from the all or nothing view of the players involved. We need to break down the stereotypes and projections, and address the emotional and psychological complexity involved. · Finding ways for the various players to assimilate their emotional experience. For example, to help employees find ways to diffuse their aggression without resorting to acting out. Similarly, we need to facilitate an understanding of the anti globalisation protestors of their own fears, and differentiate diffuse aggression from political protest. It might mean helping them name their agenda a little more, and this, in turn, may require them to work through the paradox mentioned before – that much of the power so far has been because of the amorphous, un-named form of protest. We will need to help work through this paradox without ‘killing off’ the cause and the emotional experience. · We will also need to help organisations realise that they are not as a-political as they believe they are. While ideologies are supposedly excluded from the discourse of the free market, the practice of free trade capitalism is a political statement. It is therefore extremely important to facilitate this self-insight for organisations and their leaders and to help them understand the perceived implications. There are also unique ramifications for those of us who consult to
global organisations. Like the rest of the participants in this virtual
‘group’ we occupy multiple roles and thus are vulnerable to conflicts
quite easily. We are paid by global organisations, like employees, we
are the purchasers of their goods, like consumers, and we are there
to help them become more successful and to support and identify with
their leaders. We need to be fully conscientious and cognisant about
our thoughts and feelings to minimise the counter- transference so that
we can work through the issues. ***
|
|||
 |
|||