Last year I wrote a document about the impact of neoliberalism
on Australian universities and their knowledge system. A link was placed on this website. Most of this text has now been posted (with some explanatory notes) on the
website of the International Sociological Association, “Universities in Crisis”. On that admirable site you will find lots
more about the situation in universities around the world.
Executive Fortunes
In the business news for at least a year, one of the running stories has been over-the-top pay for top executives. In September 2012 the then Chief Executive Officer of the world’s biggest mining company, Marius Kloppers of BHP Billiton, renounced his $4.5 million bonus, taking responsibility for some bad investment moves. The previous February the CEO of Rio Tinto, Tom Albanese, had renounced his bonus for the same reason (and in January 2013, he was given the boot).
Mr Kloppers didn’t hurt too badly, however. Even without the bonus, what he got from BHP Billiton in the last financial year was calculated at $9.4 million, including shares given to him as incentives. Mr Albanese’s successor, Sam Walsh, will start his new job with a total package of $7.8 million per year. Mr Kloppers takes home each year about 200 times what the average worker in the Australian economy gets. The CEOs of the other top-50 corporations in Australia take home about 100 times the average wage.
Corporate executives’ pay, even after the global financial crisis, is at historically high levels, all around the capitalist world. The ratio of CEO pay to average wages in the USA has increased about 20 times since the 1960s. There has been a sharp debate about this, especially in the USA where the top CEO pay package in 2012 was $131 million and the next three were over $60 million. The public debate is whether such huge pay packages are justified, and the broad answer seems to be, they are not. But that doesn’t stop them being paid. Why have such huge amounts become entrenched, what are they exactly, and what are their effects?
That is the start of an essay on the nature of managerial incomes, just published on the website "Inside Story". In a stunning confirmation of the argument, on the day after this was posted, came the announcement of Mr Klopper's retirement package - calculated by the financial pages at $75 million. To read the rest, please go here.
The conclusion:
To put it in a nutshell, the corporate managers are not earning wages. Markets have little to do with it. They are building fortunes. Their organizational power enables them to claim a share of the expanding financialized capital in the modern economy, and convert part of that share into extremely high incomes. Within an environment of privilege, this claim becomes a matter of common sense and routine. And though there are many critics of the result – the anti-globalization movement, the Occupy movement, and some of the unions - there is not at present any social force that has been able to reverse it.
Mr Kloppers didn’t hurt too badly, however. Even without the bonus, what he got from BHP Billiton in the last financial year was calculated at $9.4 million, including shares given to him as incentives. Mr Albanese’s successor, Sam Walsh, will start his new job with a total package of $7.8 million per year. Mr Kloppers takes home each year about 200 times what the average worker in the Australian economy gets. The CEOs of the other top-50 corporations in Australia take home about 100 times the average wage.
Corporate executives’ pay, even after the global financial crisis, is at historically high levels, all around the capitalist world. The ratio of CEO pay to average wages in the USA has increased about 20 times since the 1960s. There has been a sharp debate about this, especially in the USA where the top CEO pay package in 2012 was $131 million and the next three were over $60 million. The public debate is whether such huge pay packages are justified, and the broad answer seems to be, they are not. But that doesn’t stop them being paid. Why have such huge amounts become entrenched, what are they exactly, and what are their effects?
That is the start of an essay on the nature of managerial incomes, just published on the website "Inside Story". In a stunning confirmation of the argument, on the day after this was posted, came the announcement of Mr Klopper's retirement package - calculated by the financial pages at $75 million. To read the rest, please go here.
The conclusion:
To put it in a nutshell, the corporate managers are not earning wages. Markets have little to do with it. They are building fortunes. Their organizational power enables them to claim a share of the expanding financialized capital in the modern economy, and convert part of that share into extremely high incomes. Within an environment of privilege, this claim becomes a matter of common sense and routine. And though there are many critics of the result – the anti-globalization movement, the Occupy movement, and some of the unions - there is not at present any social force that has been able to reverse it.
Intellectuals
For my review of a good book, Rethinking Intellectuals in Latin America, edited by Mabel Moraña and Bret Gustafson, please try this link. There should be fifty free downloads here!
The Cultural Cringe and Social Science
There is
a problem about intellectual work in settler-colonial societies, like
Australia, that deeply affects social science.
The problem
was named “The
Cultural Cringe” by the Australian critic Arthur Phillips, in a pungent
article published in 1950 by the new literary magazine Meanjin. Phillips diagnosed
“a disease of the Australian mind”, an assumption of inferiority vis-a-vis England,
a deep dependence on imported judgments and tastes. Phillips shrewdly observed that this resulted
in “the estrangement of the Australian Intellectual” from Australian society, a
disdainful attitude that equated the rough, the uncultured and the local.
Phillips was talking about literature and art, but the same issues arise in science. The Beninese philosopher Paulin Hountondji described the situation in his important 1997 book Endogenous Knowledge. There is a global division of labour: data are gathered in the colony, but theory is made in the metropole. Scientists from the global South travel to the USA and Europe for training and recognition, learn Northern intellectual frameworks, try to get published in Northern journals. Hountondji calls this attitude “extraversion”, being oriented to external sources of authority. It is found both in settler and colonized societies.
Phillips was talking about literature and art, but the same issues arise in science. The Beninese philosopher Paulin Hountondji described the situation in his important 1997 book Endogenous Knowledge. There is a global division of labour: data are gathered in the colony, but theory is made in the metropole. Scientists from the global South travel to the USA and Europe for training and recognition, learn Northern intellectual frameworks, try to get published in Northern journals. Hountondji calls this attitude “extraversion”, being oriented to external sources of authority. It is found both in settler and colonized societies.
What
Phillips called a disease is better analyzed by Hountondji as part of a global
economy of culture. It’s structural, not
personal. Ultimately it has to do with
the way the public realm is created in colonial societies.
The colonizers
claimed to have the true religion or a superior civilization, but what they
crucially had was warships, muskets, cavalry, cannon, steam power and the
ruthlessness to use them for conquest.
As Hilaire Belloc observed,
Whatever happens, we have got
The
Maxim gun, and they have not.
Imperial force
enabled settlement, up to the point of demographic dominance over indigenous
people, and demographic dominance was mainly achieved by immigration. The colonial state achieved local order, so
far as it could - the colonies were violent places - through imperial law and
bureaucracy. Settler schools and
newspapers were modelled from the start on those of the home country. When the colonists felt they were up to universities
(the 1850s, in Sydney and Melbourne) they imported both the academics and the
curricula direct from what was, without irony, called the mother country.
Settler
colonialism thus produced a truncated public realm. The leading institutions and technologies were
developed in the metropole; most of the capital that underpinned colonial
development came from the metropole; and key political decisions were also made
there. In 1939 the Prime Minister
famously announced on radio that “Great Britain has declared war on [Germany],
and that, as a result, Australia is also at war”. The gesture was repeated as recently as 2003,
when the Prime Minister of the day sent Australian troops into Iraq.
For
social sciences in a settler-colonial society, this produces an “as-if” form of
knowledge. Research is done as if the researcher were standing in
the metropole, or as if the society
being studied were part of the metropole.
Thus, Australian psychology is full of experiments using scales
developed in the United States, Australian economics is full of models developed
in the United States, Australian sociology is full of concepts developed in
France.
When
these studies are published, there is normally no discussion of whether such
ideas really apply in a settler-colonial context. What might be called the productive arc of
methodology – the movement of thought in which concepts and methods are
generated from actual social experience - is missing, in settler society’s
truncated public realm of social science.
That arc was traversed in the metropole.
Its results, packaged as theory or methodology, are simply imported.
To
extraverted thought, what is imported from the metropole simply is theory or method – no other meaning
for those terms is recognized. So, on
the rare occasions where an Australian journal conducts a conceptual
discussion, it is conducted wholly within European or US parameters, and often
by invited European and US writers, at that.
Australian social scientists writing theory usually do so by commentary
on European and US theorists.
The fact
that the settler population is mostly white, English-speaking, and has European
ancestors creates an illusion of identity.
Politicians encourage this by constantly talking of Austalia as a
“Western country”, a nonsense term that a surprising number of social
scientists still use.
Current
trends in universities are worsening the problem. Neoliberal policy-makers drive Australian
universities and academics to compete with each other. The key metrics for this competition involve
recognition in the metropole,
especially, publication and citation in highly-ranked metropolitan
journals. Since metropolitan journals
operate within metropolitan intellectual cultures (we can’t expect them to do
otherwise!), the message for Australian scientists is clear: do it the US/EU way,
if you want promotion and grants in Australia.
Social
science in a settler-colonial society therefore tends to split between an abstracted theoretical discourse,
conducted as if in the metropole with little or no local reference, and an applied social science in which
methodologies developed in the metropole are applied to empirical studies of local
social problems.
The social
problems – class, patriarchy, racism, environmental destruction, and more – are
all too real. But the methodologies are
rarely sufficient to understand them in depth.
Why? Because the social problems
of settler society partly arise from the nature of settler colonialism itself,
especially from its truncated public realm.
When key determinants are located in the relationship with the metropole,
or in the dynamics of the world economy, a social science using methods and
concepts developed for the metropole to describe itself, and constantly looking
for authority to the metropole, is in a specific way displaced. Like the literary culture criticized by
Phillips, though trying to describe local society it is estranged from it.
 |
| Christina Stead |
Estrangement
of intellectuals is recognized, indeed a cliche of Australian cultural history. There are also well-known responses to it. One is the angry rejection of the cultural
cringe in the name of an anti-imperial nationalism. That was the note struck by Bulletin school of writers in the 1890s,
especially the radicals who associated English culture with a despised upper
class in the colonies. Settler intellectuals
don’t have Aboriginal culture to fall back on, though the “Jindyworobak”
movement poets of the 1930s tried – the result being an arrogant act of
colonial re-appropriation, as well as some interesting poetry. Some go into exile, but in a way that inverts
the exile stories known since Ovid. It
is exile to the metropole. The result
can be the haunted double vision of the world seen in The Man Who Loved Children, the great work of Australia’s first
modernist novelist, Christina Stead, who wrote it in exile in the United
States.
These
responses are available to social scientists too, and we can trace them through
the history of social sciences in settler societies. The greatest social scientist Australia has
produced, the pre-historian Vere
Gordon Childe, went down the track of exile, working in Europe for most of
his career from the 1920s on. He came
back to the Blue Mountains near Sydney to die.
The
problem can’t be solved on an individual basis.
It requires collective and institutional change, on a scale that is only
now becoming clear. It requires, in
fact, a re-making of social science on a world scale.
