Upload
dukomaniac
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 The Perils of Globalization - An Interview With Jerry Mander - Anti Globalization
1/4
ABOUT THIS SITE
Who Is Scott London?
About This Site
Site Index
RSS Feed
BEST OF...
The Power of Dialogue
A View From the Melting Pot
The Burning Man Photographs
The Future of Journalism
Our Calling in Life
POPULAR POSTS
The Power of Informal Networks
5 Things I Love About Twitter
On Branding and Other Buzzwords
Our Next Evolutionary Leap
Avoid Success at All Costs
RECENT STUFF
Being an Adult in Relationships
Things Are Not as They Seem
What Makes a Living City?
What Nobel Really Wanted
Burning Man Photos: An Update
ELSEWHERE
Follow on Twitter
Connect on Facebook
LinkedIn Profile
HOME BLOG BOOKS ARTICLES INTERVIEWS REVIEWS RADIO PHOTOGRAPHY ABOUT CONTACT SITE INDEX
Jerry Mander
The Perils of Globalization:
An Interview with Jerry Mander
Jerry Mander is regarded as one of today's most articulate and outspoken critics of technology and economic
globalization. His books includeFour Arguments for the Elimination of Television,In the Absence of the Sacred, and
The Case Against the Global Economy (co-edited with Edward Goldsmith). In this interview, Mander makes a forceful
case against economic globalization, arguing that we need to examine the hidden costs of free trade and deregulation and
search for more enlighened economic models to guide us into the twenty-first century.
Scott London: The case, as it's usually presented, is that the globalized economy is a good thing that will secure jobs,
allow us to remain competitive, and promote democracy abroad. Isn't there some truth to that?
Jerry Mander: The people who are making that case are the people who are promoting globalization corporations
and banks and governments. They are saying that globalization can solve the world's problems, that it's going to give
people something to eat and so on. They are redesigning an economy that they say works. But it doesn't work.
We've had globalization for quite a while, it's just being accelerated right now.
Wherever the rules of free trade and economic globalization are followed, you have
economic and ecological disasters immediately thereafter. You've got the complete
destruct ion of small, traditional farming in Africa and elsewhere; you've got the
complete devastation of nature all around the world; you've got people shoved off their
lands to make way for giant dams and agri-business and so on, who then become part of
the mil lions and millions of people roaming the land and going into cities looking for
impossible-to-find jobs, all in competition with each other, and violent and angry. And
then people are angry with them, because who needs more people around? So you've set
in to motion a global disarray and nonfunctionalism that would not have been achieved
certainly not at the same level and with the same speed without this emphasis on global development.
However poorly people lived in terms of material wealth in traditional societies, there was much that they retained. They
retained a fair amount of local control. They retained some degree of traditional culture. Even in societies that had
already been im pacted, like India, you had a lot of cultural identity and a history of relationships to scale that were really
different. It was an economy of small-scale institutions. That has been wiped out by economic globalization with the
invasion of franchises and giant institutions that have taken over the land.
London: I remember a full-page ad in theNew York Times during the height of the NAFTA debate a few years ago. A
long list of Nobel laureates in economics and the various sciences expressed their support for the free-trade agreement.
How is it that so many "experts" could speak out in favor of something that has such damaging effects?
Mander: Look, the roots of globalization are in the concepts that are underneath it. The concepts of economic
globalization are the absolute need for economic growth and the viability of the free market. Economic globalization is
an acceleration of both of those conceptual frameworks. Those frameworks are not questioned in this society. In every
newspaper report about the economy, in every presidential campaign, and in a high percentage of congressional speeches,
people insist on the need for more economic growth. This idea is at the root of our classical economics. The fact that
so-called experts, like five former presidents and five former secretaries of state, all got together in a press conference
and said that free trade is a good thing was al ready known. They were the ones who helped create it. What was the big
news about that? The fact that big economists and big corporations all think the global economy is a good thing is not
news. Of course they think so, they are the ones who have been ru nning it all along.
I don't know what Nobel laureates have thought about this subject very much. I don't know how many of them could talk
By Scott London
erils of Globalization - An Interview with Jerry Mander http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/man
9/8/2011
7/29/2019 The Perils of Globalization - An Interview With Jerry Mander - Anti Globalization
2/4
about structural adjustment programs, for example. Very damn few of them would even know what it means. They just
think that it's a good thing to unify the world. They think the idea of all the cultures getting together and merging into
one big happy culture is how to save the world. It's kind of a left-over of communism, on the one hand, and the new
federalism on the other. And, on the th ird hand, it's a funny distortion of pluralistic democratic ideas.
But they're wrong. Globalization doesn't work. There is lots of evidence of that. We're on the verge of an ecological
catastrophe of stupendous proportions. There is a terrible degree of alienation at large in the world. There is a
tremendous amount of vi olence. Everybody is at each other's throats. How could they possibly think that this has been
good? This whole process has been terrible, and the process of globalization only makes it much worse. It's preposterous
to think that anything good is going to come from this.
London: What is a structural adjustment program?
Mander: Structural adjustment programs are the basic way that the World Bank gives its so-called loans. The loans are
supposed to get countries to lift themselves up out of poverty. Everybody thinks that World Bank loans are good things.
There are times when they are good things. But most of these loans are given on the basis of a nation agreeing to a set of
rules that structurally adjust its economy to make it compatible with the structural adjustments going on in other
countries and with the gene ral shape of the globalized economy. So the World Bank is going around from door to door,
more or less, and redesigning everybody's economy so that they will be a part of the same general economy, and so that
they will all be connected to one another like a standard-gauge railway.
The rules of structural adjustment include such things as eliminating laws formerly in place, such as not letting
foreigners come in and take over corporations, banks, and infrastructure, and ensuring that locals always had a
controlling interest. You had to get rid of those rules, of course. So, automatically, structural adjustment creates foreign
domination of national economies. Local businesses are injured.
Structural adjustment also puts caps on social welfare. Countries are supposed to have wage controls, but not price
controls that is, you can control wages, but you cannot control prices. And the former models of production which
were called "import su bstitution models," where nations tried very hard for self-sustainability, have to be sacrificed for
export economies. That is to say, you drop import substitution programs and you promote export economy programs.
Things like public services are cut way b ack, but public infrastructure is supposed to get a certain amount of the money
that you are loaned, and you then build more highways, more roads and so on. You create a condition which speeds up
economic activity. Those are just some of the rules, but th ere are many more.
How could anyone expect that a country would be better off under those rules? If anything, they lose the ability to
control themselves. The elites of those countries who participate in this process, who become part of the boards of the
corporations and so on, they benefit. But most people lose their livelihoods, their homes, their ability to survive, and
have to get on their feet and start wandering around looking for something to eat. Basically, that is what's happened. The
bankers and the financiers and the economists and the government people who conceive of all this are the ones who
benefit from the process.
It's almost as though people got together and said, "What kind of economic system would work best for us?" The global
economy is it. That's the economic system that works best for the corporations and the bureaucracies that control the
process. And part o f what they do is that they tell us that it's good. Why would they tell us it's bad? They tell us it's good.
London: Some people feel that now that communism has collapsed, free-market capitalism may be next. After all, the
economy can't continue to grow forever at some point, an exponential curve has to either level off or crash.
Mander: I think that if I say "Yes, we have to rethink capitalism," then it gets reduced to, "Oh, he's anti-capitalist." It'snot capitalism in particular that has to be rethought, it's the whole economic structure. The global economy is not capita
lism. I have a master's degree in economics, and I know this is not capitalism. What we have now is a centrally controlled
economy. The only capitalism that takes place is among the people who have no part in the real benefits of the system
you know, t he people at the lower rungs have some capitalism going with small stores and so on. But, basically, the
great part of the system doesn't function in a capitalist manner. It's not a socialist manner either. It's some kind of
hodge-podge of connections tha t have been put together for greasing the skids of advanced development and growth and
corporate benefit.
Free trade? Free market? We don't have either of those either. We have some kind of combination. What we have is a
corporate take-over of the rules and a lot of corporate authority.
London: Corporatism?
erils of Globalization - An Interview with Jerry Mander http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/man
9/8/2011
7/29/2019 The Perils of Globalization - An Interview With Jerry Mander - Anti Globalization
3/4
Mander: Yes, a corporate economy an economy that is good for corporations. It's not capitalism exactly, and it's not
socialism exactly, and it's not anarchy either. It's a different of system of organization in which corporations exercise the
co ntrol and reap the benefits.
London: You've written that one of the insidious effects of the global economy is the creation of monocultures defined
by satellite television and global marketing. What's wrong with kids in Nepal wearing Reebok shoes and wearing
Madonna T-shirts i f we here in the States are eating sushi and listening to Brazilian pop music?
Mander: There is nothing really wrong with any of it. That's not the point. I don't think that any human being is wrong
for wanting something, or even using something. Why shouldn't a kid wear Nikes? What we have to take a look at is the
multiplici ty of rearrangements and new rules that creates kids in Nepal dying to get hold of Air Jordan sneakers, and
what that expresses in terms of homogenized viewpoints and the loss of cultural diversity and so on. Are we gaining
more or losing more? That's wha t people really need to focus on, and that's what we need to decide.
London: I was working in the north of Norway in the mid-1980s. At the time, the Norwegian government was installing
new satellite TV services and making them available to people in their homes. The town I was working in had a very
vibrant local art and music scene. But almost overnight the people started picking up new stations like MTV and CNN.
The effect on the young people was extraordinary. I got to see at first hand how the local scene was supplanted by the
influx of foreign TV shows, pop videos, and global marketing. This the kind of "monoculture" you are talking about, I
take it.
Mander: You put it very well. That's one. But there are others, and the others may be more important. Helena
Norberg-Hodge and Vandana Shiva, in particular, have written about the agricultural monoculture that is upon us now.
Because of the global market, the varieties of produce that people used to grow is no longer available. In Peru and Chile,
for example, there are hundreds of varieties of indigenous potatoes. People used to grow them and protect the seeds so
they could pass them on to the next generation so that there was tremendous variety of potatoes. But now, with the
export economy taking over everywhere in the world, you don't grow a hundred varieties of potatoes anymore. Now you
grow one kind of potato, or maybe two, because that is what is going to get exported to England, or that is what is going
to be exported somewhere else.
Another common example are small farm systems that once grew many, many varieties of many, many different food
products. Today many of them have been wiped out in order to grow coffee, for example. That's a loss of biodiversity
and a the creation of an ag ricultural monoculture.
So we have not only a cultural monoculture, but also a biological and technological monoculture where people are
all relating to the same kinds of machines. The global economy is simplifying and homogenizing and unifying culture
arround the world.
London: How do we respond to the forces of globalization?
Mander: Well, if the car is about to go off the cliff, the first thing you do is stop the car. We're about to go off the cliff
and we've got to stop the car. That's number one. Then we have to find a road map where to go next. A lot of people
ar e already looking for this road map.
The question that is most interesting to me, and the only that seems to make sense is: if globalization doesn't work, what
about localization? I think relocalization is absolutely inevitable. It's going to happen one way or another because the
global econ omy will break down, even if we don't organize a mass movement about it. It simply doesn't work. It can't
sustain itself. It's going to fall apart and disintegrate I hope sooner rather than later so a certain degree of
relocalization is going to tak e place automatically. I'm I little worried that it might also entail the growth of fascism hereand there, as local powers gain real control. But I don't think that's an argument against relocalization, just against the
wrong kind of localization.
What's necessary is that real power and real economic control be reduced very far down so that people have real control
of their lives, and so that the technologies and forms of organization that they use don't assist the process of
globalization.
London: E.F. Schumacher, in his famous bookSmall is Beautiful, talked about "economics as if people mattered." That
seems to be the case you are making here as well: we need a new kind of economics on a smaller scale, as if people
mattered.
erils of Globalization - An Interview with Jerry Mander http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/man
9/8/2011
7/29/2019 The Perils of Globalization - An Interview With Jerry Mander - Anti Globalization
4/4
Copyright 2011 by Scott London. All rights reserved.
Mander: Well, it's not only people, though. I really we need an economics as if people and the natural world mattered.
At the very least, you have to put it like that. It's not only people. Thinking only of people on this question is part of the
pr oblem, because it means that we try to seek solutions to our own needs and satisfactions without looking at the values
and long-term results of those solutions.
London: We talked a little about advertising, which has a great deal to do with the global economy. You used to be an
advertising executive but made a conscious decision to get out back in the 1960s. Why?
Mander: I began to feel that doing advertising and promoting greater consumption and greater use of resources and
more cars (we had a car count at the time) was the problem, not the solution. I was also beginning to relate to the world
according to the kinds of movements that were developing at the time. We began to do advertising for the Sierra Club,
Friends of the Earth, and some other groups in those days. The ecology movement was growing up and I started to take it
seriously. Then I formed the country's first non-profit advertising company, which was called Public Interest
Communications, which no longer exists. But now I work for the Public Media Center, which started up on its own a
few years after that. My relationship to this subject is rea lly rooted in what began at that time, because I now see that the
consumption orientation is a major part of the problem, and that it's now being expressed globally to such a degree that
it's become an advertising man's greatest fantasy.
This interview was adapted from the public radio series "Insight & Outlook." It appeared, in slightly different form,
in the January 2000 issue of HopeDance magazine.
Related Interview: "Megatechnology: An Interview with Jerry Mander" by Scott London
Related Book Review: Scott London discusses Jerry Mander's "In the Absense of the Sacred"
erils of Globalization - An Interview with Jerry Mander http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/man
9/8/2011