Words and Phrases I Hate

There are some words and phrases in modern common usage that drive me nuts. What drives me nuts are the connotations and the implicit meanings buried in such words and phrases. I can't help but see the hidden social toxicity buried within these terms. So yes, this is a rant and rave of sorts; take it for what it's worth.

"Stakeholders"

"Stakeholder" is a word commonly used amongst legislators and bureaucrats at all levels of government. A "stakeholder" is a privately controlled institution or entity with a big "stake" in the decisions and actions taken by the governmental agency in question.

For instance, real estate developers are the big "stakeholders" when it comes to issues of zoning, provision of local public resources, etc. The U.S. Treasury Department's biggest "stakeholder" are the banks: The bigger the bank, the bigger the "stake". Contractors and construction firms are the major "stakeholder" in any state highway department. The biggest "stakeholder" in the U.S. corrections system are the private prison operators. As the Federal government approaches health care reform legislation it is becoming apparent that the big "stakeholders" are the hospital chains, private insurance firms and the AMA.

Of course, "stakeholders" are stakeholders because they have resources. They employ armies of lobbyists, make large campaign donations, have access to the media and can influence media messages in significant ways. The important concept in this state of affairs is this: We all have freedom of speech in America. It's just that in our capitalist society some have more freedom of speech than others. Why? Because political and social discourse can be bought, sold and controlled to the extent that one has the money to do so (folks interested in how this state of affairs has developed in the U.S.A. should read Steve Hall's post of July 10, 2009).

Chances are you are not a "stakeholder". I know I'm not a "stakeholder". Most of us citizens are not "stakeholders". Government could give a damn about what you are I might think. And thus, it is possible to become involved in seven years of war in the Middle East in spite of opposition from 70% of the population. In the same sense, health care reform will amount to a giant disappointment even though 67% of the population are calling for significant health care reform including universality and accessibility regardless of ability to pay.

Personally, I'd like to see these "stakeholders" and their governmental cronies carrying their "stakes" right through their hearts.... This would be progress.

"Rule of Law"

Lord, I hate this phrase! I hear this phrase all the time these days. It comes up whenever the subject of Iran, or North Korea, Belarus, or even Cuba comes up and needs to be painted in a particularly negative light in the media. Thus, any nation in conflict with the U.S. is by definition ruled by some sort of a monolithic despot... As compared to us, where the "rule of law" prevails. As if somehow the "policy" is sacred, above criticism and immune to injustice if it's haggled about in the media then passed in some sort of legislative body.

Of course, this false dichotomy fails to mention that Nazi Germany's racial purity laws were laws passed by a legislature (Reichstag) and enforced through courts. This same view of things fails to acknowledge that the Jim Crow laws were indeed "laws", that thousands of working class activists spent years in prison or were deported because their labor activities and political orientation were "against the law", that our courts routinely jail and execute African Americans and other minorities at rates far exceeding their population rates and in spite of proven evidence that significant numbers of these convictions are false. Indeed, it appears that torture conducted by the U.S. government isn't really torture because it was invented and made policy by a President and a Congress. As a result, there is no torture, only "enhanced interrogation techniques".

People might do well to remember German 19th century Chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck's quote to the effect that people who like laws are like people who like sausage; neither of them should ask how the product was made.

"It's Brain Chemicals"

Did you know? 25%- plus of the U.S. population are taking anti-depressant medication. In just about any pool of health insured people the most prescribed medications are by far SRI (Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors) anti-depressants.

I've long had an interest in psychology and psychiatry. Anybody who follows the modern treatment of depression and indeed most mental illness, will recognize that "it's all brain chemicals" is the primary explanation of mental illness, specifically depression, thrown out there by the psychiatric industry and in most popular explanations of depression.

40ish years ago, an experimental psychologist named Martin Seligman invented the concept of "learned helplessness". It was all sort of an accident and it happened like this:

There were three groups of dogs. The first group of dogs were rigged in a harness wired to give electrical shocks, but were never shocked. The second groups of dogs were rigged in the same harness and were given electrical shocks but could turn off the shocks by pushing a lever. The third group of dogs were rigged in the harness and given electrical shocks. This third group however had no way to turn the shock off. Thus, the third group of dogs were shocked, and they experienced the cessation of shocks, but the shocks and the cessation of the shocks were random, as these dogs as they had no way to control their occurrence.

The first two groups of dogs learned and coped. When the experiment was over, dogs of the first two groups recovered quickly and anthropomorphically put the experience behind them. The third group of dogs didn't do so well. Without any possibility of control, dogs of this third group quickly collapsed and whimpered in canine messes. To make matters worse, these dogs did not recover when the experiment was over. Indeed, the collapse and whimpering generalized; dogs of the third group approached new noxious experiences by collapsing and whimpering. Thus, the origins of the concept of learned helplessness!

Personally, I'm willing to bet that if one measured levels of neuro-transmitters in the brains of this third group of dogs, one would find these chemicals depleted or otherwise out of whack (please please don't attempt this stuff! Dogs deserve better). This might take me one step farther and I'd be willing to suggest that experiences of life alter brain chemicals... Specifically, that certain life experiences tainted with a lack of control, real or perceived, can make a person seriously depressed, including altering of brain chemicals.

One might think that something might be wrong with the nature of our society and our social relationships when 25% to 45% of the population needs anti-depressant medication to function. These questions however are rarely asked. Instead, all this depression gets explained as imbalances in our brain chemicals... The the path of this imbalance is further explained as the result of genetics and/or defects in the personality of the individual.

The end of all this?

Capitalist medicine by its very nature is not going to examine a toxic society. To embark on such an examination might very well lead to an undoing of the conceptual structure underlying modern capitalist psychiatry and the nature of capitalism itself.

On the other hand... "It's all the brain chemicals" avoids any examination of experience, the nature of our capitalist society, and at the same time creates a wonderful niche for new products. So, there's a whole new panel of improved anti-depressants hitting the market as I speak. Yahoo...

As a counter, I'd like to suggest that all this depression effecting giant segments of modern capitalist society has a lot more to do with wide segments of the population having "third group" dog experiences. Think about it, eh?

"We Decided Long Ago That We Are A Free Enterprise Society, So Shut Up."

I actually heard this about four years ago. It was in a high school classroom, the subject was American History and the period being studied was the Great Depression of 1929 to 1941. A kid in the class asked, "Why don't we study socialism? What's wrong with socialism?". The title of this sub-section was the teacher's response to the kid's question (exact quote).

A couple of months ago, the Republican Party labelled the Obama Administration and Democratic Party as "socialistic". Anybody with even a glancing knowledge of the socialist tradition knows this Republican plank to be pure bullshit. The Democratic Party in turn defended itself by stating its total adherence to a free market economy and flatly denying any socialist inspired policy within the Party or the Administration.

The sum effect of this whole Republican vs. Democratic pissing match was to once again reinforce that old American plank that we are a "free enterprise society", so... "Shut Up!"

About a month ago, Obama was pressed on the question of "Why not single payer?" Obama's response was that.... "If we could start from scratch single payer might be best..." "But..."

Here, Obama for pragmatic reasons shuts down any discussion of the health care alternative that actually could provide universal, quality, and individually free health care. Why? Obama's no dummy, he knows quite well that single payer is just too "socialistic", regardless of whether it works or not.

Every time I hear "we're a free enterprise society" I know that the limits of the public dialogue are being enforced. "We're a free enterprise society" is a shut down phrase; it is meant in this one sense only.

"Socialism or Barbarism?"

Rosa Luxembourg's quote... I love this quote because it makes the choices so clear.

"Stakeholder", "Rule of Law", "It's all Brain Chemicals", "We're a Free Enterprise Society". All of these common little statements aim to force the barbarism option by denying a socialist analysis and socialist solutions... Every time I hear "we're a free enterprise society" I can also hear a remark that goes like this:

"Mass homelessness? Double digit unemployment? Biggest proportion of people in jail in the whole works? Collapsing education system? 60 million with no health care? Yup, we gladly accept these outcomes because we are a free enterprise society!"

And thus speaks the ruling class...