The James Bond Dilemma - The Ethics of Anthropology and the Structure of the University

In beginning to think about the terms of this project I have met a dilemma, my research group is a social circle in which I participate regularly and have become assimilated in over the past years. But I find in myself a moral disgust at the thought of using people, whether they be my friends or strangers, as my research object as it makes me question my perception of the nature of anthropology. And the role the anthropologist plays as a research gatherer but also a human being within a network of other humans. It feels like a deceptive practice.

As an ethical agent I believe it is necessary to discuss the ethic to ones self. Within my self I have found a deep contradiction in my thought about how I should operate as an agent in the field. For I feel my mind has come to think as the role of an anthropologist as similar to that of a secret agent. But this is only if the agent does not proclaim his involvement in the field of anthropology. If he does proclaim that he is an agent of anthropology he does two things. Announces that he is there to study, compromising the research group. Or in not announcing himself begs the anthropologist to question for the sake of knowledge weather he should act as himself, but think like an anthropologist; which compromises his moral integrity for he then comes to think of all he sees as something of interest or not to his research. When one is working as an insider, an already assimilated member of a group this evokes a strange moral dilemma, as the line between friend and research object becomes muddy.

The slot has not become a problem, as Trouillot argues (Trouillot; 1991). How anthropologists view their field through their history has become a meta-layer of analysis in itself, and thus has been removed from the under layer of the anthropologists thought, and brought it to the fore front of consciousness; into a space that the concepts that colonialism has embedded in our structures can be analysed. We have come to terms with the fact that the loss of “the other” has an implication for the field. But we have moved past it in terms of analysis of the fact that we are individual agents in a network and we can only perceive as much as we perceive, in the frame work that has been built, questioned, and realigned. It is perhaps because of our built perceptions that we like to think of our relation of ourselves to the world in terms of a field site, as we would in terms of our normal dealings with reality. If you walked into a venue, you would instantly refer to yourself as being at that specific venue. And this makes the idea of a field site seem less colonial. The fact is that we think in terms of spacial location, and our relation to other people in terms of locating nouns, even if you were not an anthropologist. Unless one wants to question how we perceive time as linear and spatial, and the dialogue which has developed around these perceptions, then the idea of a field site and the concepts of meaning that surround that do not hold much water in terms of what the problem with anthropology is.

  It is not the trope of “the savage” that is the problem; it is the act of voyeurism which should repel the anthropologist in an ethical dilemma. Not: is it right to study “the other” in terms of a colonial project, for this language is embedded into every part of society, it is an unavoidable part of our landscape, which as it is being realised is being adjusted. But is it right to study other people, as a course of ethics, in the manner that we do. Even if you self-proclaim yourself as an anthropologist in the field it begs the question of whether it is right or wrong to have such a job description. All anthropology seems to be doing is watching and “hanging” with vivid theoretical imagination to justify its being there. Meta – layer built up upon meta-layer. This has not only complicated the world and our perception of it, but has made us lose sight of the true ethic behind anthropology. It is no longer for the project of colonialism. And if it is no longer a product of colonialism what should it be a project of? The project of anthropology seems un-utilitarian; it does not benefit a large amount of people. It seems to have become a project of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and more to the benefit of the individual anthropologist in terms of his quest for excellence within the field of anthropology. But here in lies the flaw in the university structure in which the anthropologist is taught. For it seems like it is not the project of the university to seek the greater good, but the greater knowledge, but even more so now, the greater capital. It has become the project of the individual to seek the greater good, not the institutions which surround him. But the in order for the greater good to be attained, in this case the benefit of people who are not a part of well off society but who are engulfed by it, but have not been assimilated, the project of the university, and the project behind the structures of society as a whole. This is not said as an act of idealism. In the simple act of watching myself as an anthropology student I find the heart of the dilemma faced in the structure we find ourselves in. The anthropologists must find a way to be justified in its (I had a momentary collapse of “he”/”she” dichotomies) studies, the only justifying factor of any action of an ethical nature should be in a nature which benefits people within your given time and space, as an individual that you are. By merely being an anthropologist within a space with no project other than writing a paper involving the deepness of theoretical knowledge that we have evolved, we cannot be justified in our studying of others.

Spatial Time

There is something deeper to be said about the notion of “instant gratification” and punctuated time when looking into the industry of sex work and pornography. And it is evident in all the players. The prostitutes, their clients and a young group of anthropology students who sought, in a short instance, to find out more about how prostitutes spend their time on Oxford Road in Rosebank, Johannesburg. 

Report

This report will outline the events of the evening of Saturday the 31^st of March 2012, when said anthropology students set out to become voyeurs of the ladies of the night. As an anthropologist I could not help but study my peers as we embarked on this mission together. It would skew my findings if I did not.

We met at R’s house at 8pm, N was already there, she had been dropped off by her father. He was unaware of the plans for the night, although he was aware that she was there to do a project. I had gotten a ride with L. We convened in the kitchen and drank (rum for those still suffering the ills of the previous night, and coca-a-cola for those who were not of the drinking ilk) as we waited for the last member of tonight’s scouting crew to join us, A. The conversation revolved around sex, play parties and feminism.

A full hour late A arrives. We set off – walking towards Oxford Road, which is a few blocks away. The mood is jovial, conversation between N, A and I is focused on our research proposals. L and R are a short way ahead. They have stopped on the next corner, interrupting two prostitutes at work.

Error one: The prostitutes become hostile as R explains they are waiting for us, and gestures down the road. One of the ladies tells them to get out of their office. This momentary action has caused us to come under suspicion. We learn that travelling in a group is not a wise decision. For two reasons: firstly, it is not inconspicuous. Secondly, it is distracting.

We walk across the road, and lurk in some shadows. Discussing whether to walk on, split up or stay where we are, the decision is made to stay in a group. While we sit, smoking in the shadows. At 9.30pm a cop car rolls by, the ladies send off a whistle down the road, we assume this is to warn fellow prostitutes down the road that a van is approaching (but this is mere speculation). At 9.40 a silver combi pulls up to the corner that the ladies are standing on. They both approach the vehicle. After a brief discussion, one of the girls gets into the combi. The other is left on the corner.

The conversation in the group turns to how long the transaction will take from here on. R wanders how men can just rock up in the mood so quickly, he speculates it will take a while. I counteract him, saying 10 minutes maximum. R does not believe this is possible. The rest of the group join in. A concern comes up of how the ladies clean themselves after each transaction. Although they each have large bags, their contents are not known to us.

The lady that was left on the corner now makes her way down the road towards Corlett Drive. We wander if this is for safety, not wanting to be on the corner alone, or whether our presence has gotten to her, and she is moving to another spot. If it has she does not show a sign of it.

The other lady, who had gone with the silver combi, returns. The transaction has not taken more than ten minutes. R mouths his disbelief.

The lady is alone on the corner. At 10.10pm a man in black walks towards her. They talk, and walk up the road away from Oxford together. L and A set off to follow them. Another cop car drives past shortly after. We did not take down licence plate details. It could have been the same car. At 10.20 the lady who had walked towards Corlett Drive comes back up the street. She walks across the road, stopping midway on the island. She lifts her skirt (already so short that the cheeks of her bottom are sticking out) and flashes passing cars. She then takes some money out of her bag and counts it. She finishes this takes a bottle out of her bag, from where we are sitting it looks like wine, and drinks. She then makes a call. It is a short one, maybe two minutes. With the call finished she proceeds to whistle or yell “hey baby” at passing vehicles.

In this time L and A return, they have lost their targets. By 10.20pm the lady who they had set out to follow returns. She has hitched down her skirt, to below knee length and put on takkis. She looks respectable as she makes her way down Oxford towards town.

The lady on the island makes a phone call while yelling at us that “you will get what you deserve.” We choose this point to leave. The ethics of the situation, which we had been ignoring, now staring us in the face. We head back to R, N is getting picked up soon. We get back to the house and wait for N’s father. R wishes for L and I to stay so that it does not look as if N is hanging around with just R and A (both male). N’s father arrives, and she leaves. We retreat back to the kitchen to discuss.

We talk about the notion of time and living in a culture of instant gratification. Where if one has money ones desires can be fulfilled instantly.

Assessment

The concept of fulfilment has a deeper meaning in relation to time. If we argue that we live in punctuated time, then in this context, of the brief transactions between a sex worker and a client, this assumption would be correct. But this is in relation to a goal; if the purpose is to fulfil ones’ duty as a sex worker, or to obtain sexual gratification, or to study sex workers in periods of time. Then punctuated time becomes a reality, because if you are not fulfilling your task, then time is meaningless – in this context.  

If we look at the above story all that can be perceived from it is moments in time that seem significant to our aim, which is to see how prostitutes spend their time in between and during interactions with clients. The rest of the time becomes irrelevant. But time is nothing without movement in space. Which can also be dissected as time is in our analysis. What is important to this report is that we are on the street, so we do not describe the trees, or the cars driving by that do not stop. It becomes meaningless detail, because we are only reading meaning in relation to a specific goal; although our goal is not mediated by money but by information, which is a form of commodity to some extent.

But in this description it can be seen that firstly it is not just time, but space that can become punctuated. And secondly this perception of punctuation is in relation to a goal, and that the time and space that is not related to the goal at hand is meaningless.

This cannot be true in relation to how we actually perceive things if we want to maintain the idea that people move within time from past to present. That because we share the same space (this planet) that we all exist in the same frame of time. Time, and its meaning, becomes arranged around a subjective goal. Thus each person’s perception of time becomes subjective, as their space is subjective as is their goal. As is their perspective of what meaningless and meaningful time would be.

It seems that our current description of time is objective, that everybody adheres to the same time. But this is impossible because time is nothing without movement in space. And nobody inhabits the same space with others continuously. So at most we can say that time can be objectively spent with others, as in the case of the anthropologists studying the prostitutes in that their goal is the same; but subjective in relation to their previous experience through time and space, and their ulterior goals. But one could not assume that time is linear and we all exist in the same time, for we do not inhabit the same space.

The problem is the notion of moving forward and backwards in time - which creates the illusion that everyone is moving in linear time, from a point in the past to a point in the future and that time is punctuated by events. But in actuality it would seem that we live from meaningful moment to meaningful moment, with meaningless time in between; time that is not spent in relation to a goal. Time need not be conceived as linear but spatial. As our perception of past and future only exist within that space in time, in relation to other spaces in time.

Time is thus only noticeable in relation to the achievement of a goal, but the perception of the fulfilment of a goal must take place within a space. Because our perceptions of space are not linear, our perspective of time cannot be linear, and are not because we perceive time not in relation from one moment to the next, but in a mixed acquisition of thoughts about the present, past and future all embodied in different fragmented spaces.

Commodity Driven Economy?

In this paper I have focused on the position of labour in relation to commodities, matter and use-value. And it is in this relationship that we will find what Marx perceives the value of labour to be. I will also highlight the difference between what Marx believes an aimless expenditure of labour would be, and in doing so discuss the disjuncture present in South Africa in a commodity driven economy.

So let us dissect the terms. Firstly: Commodities. Commodities for Marx are constituted as commodities if they have either a) value or b) use value. Use value being the objects propensity to be useful. The qualities that Marx attributes to the use value of commodities are as follows.

11)      They are independent from the labour which produced them

22)      The use value of a commodity is only realised in its consumption

33)      It constitutes the substance of all wealth. Wealth being a societal construct. (What I believe this to mean is that the more useful a commodity is within a given society the more it is worth. For example a can opener in a society with no cans has no value, where as a can opener on an island full of canned food and no rocks would be an object of extreme use-value)

44)      The use value of a commodity is the material depository of exchange value

Now, how does labour relate to commodities? According to Marx if the same amount of work or labour time goes into the making of a product, then those products are of equal value. But value must also be measured in relation to quantity. The value of a commodity decreases as the quantity increases.  But increases as the quality and the amount of labour time that go into the commodity increase.  So we can see that more labour per commodity equals more valuable commodities, and conversely less labour per commodity equals less valuable commodities, in relation to quality and quantity.

In order for labour to create a commodity it must be introduced into productive labour in which it works with earthly matter in order to transform that matter into a commodity.  But in a capitalist society the labourer does not own the means of production necessary to produce commodities and so he must sell his labour power to a capitalist who owns the necessary equipment. In doing this the labourer exchanges his labour for money. The labourer must do this because wealth in a capitalist society is constituted by use-value, which is embodied in commodities.  He cannot purely do the amount of labour necessary to survive because the capitalist must create surplus value off of the commodities which he the labourer creates, but does not own. In order to create this surplus value the capitalist takes the production of commodities and reduces them to the effort of a group of labourers as opposed to a single individual. So if you look at a production line on a film set, take Labyrinth for example in which a mid-evil village is created out of poly euro thane. The set starts with the poly euro thane being set in moulds of brick walls. The moulded slabs which emerged must then be scrubbed, after scrubbing they are coated with coprox, and taken outside to dry. Once dry the base layers of paint are applied, and once again taken out to dry. Once dry they slabs are all taken to the set where they are constructed by the fabricators. After fabrication is complete another round of painting is done in order to accomplish the finished product. Each of these processes requires individuals to do specific tasks in order to create the greater commodity. So instead of producing one actual commodity each the necessary labours are divided. Because of this division and removal of the individual labourer from the commodity, the film set, the capitalist can make surplus value off his commodity because the value of it is related to labour power expended. But this, the labour power, is calculated amongst a group and not an individual. Surplus value is then further increased through extended working hours, and worker productivity.

So we can now see the relation of the value of labour to commodity under a capitalist system. It is clearly an exploitative one, in which the value of the labourer is degraded in the process of making surplus capital. It is a situation in which the labourer has very little control of his work hours and pay rate. But is forced into labour for he has no common land on which to survive with just simple modes of production like sustainable farming.

With this brief introduction to Marx’s theory of labour I would like to draw your attention to the difference between labour and the expenditure of labour power. Labour according to Marx is productive activity with an aim, whereas expenditure of labour power is productive activity without an aim. This baffles me slightly. What sort of expenditure of labour power does not have an aim? My guess is that because we are talking about a capitalist system the aim of the process of labour would be the production of commodity. This, I believe, is a terrible aim, probably worse than the Socratic drive for truth via logic. For this aim shifts the whole structure of society into a commodity driven economy. While it is true that commodities are a necessary part of an economy, the aim of a society should not be to produce commodities, but to ensure that people have the necessary commodities in order to live. As we can see in our South African society we have a surplus of wasted commodities, and a large rate of poverty and unemployment. The question I will pose you is how can this disjuncture be eradicated? 

The Market Universe of Doom

There is no doubt that there is wealth in South Africa, and conversely there is no doubt that there is poverty. And in between this wealth and poverty there is mass unemployment that is slowly decreasing according to the Quarterly Labour Force Survey in South Africa October to December 2011, even though it is still sitting at 23.9%, that is roughly 4244000 unemployed people out of a population of 32670000 people between the ages of 15 and 64. The most trouble lies in youth unemployment with the unemployment rate being 51% among 15 to 25 year olds (Jones: 2011). The question then is where is the money going? Why is it not being invested into business – which would create employment? Why are there no jobs for the youth of South Africa?

The truth of the matter is the world has changed - not only in the technological shift where unskilled labour is becoming less of a commodity because of the mechanical take-over - if Benjamin Lee and Edward LiPuma are correct, another change occurred in 1973 – the year which marked the end of the Bretton Woods agreement and of the gold standard. The old model has been undermined and a new model has taken its place while the rest of the world seems unable to keep up with the change. The economy no longer drives the market, it is now the market which drives the economy. (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002: 203-205)

Model one: Marx. In a very simplistic explanation of Marx’s model productive labour was the basis of an expanding economy. Labour itself was a commodity, and a necessary part of the production of commodities. The key was to drive the cost of labour down in order to create surplus capital off of the selling of commodities. (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002: 203)

Model two:  Derivatives. And here things get murky for I am delving into the realms of the market. A place I have no authority on. Derivatives are defined as “financial instruments that derive their monetary value from other assets, such as stocks, bonds, commodities, or currencies.” (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002:204) What a derivative does is it gives individuals the opportunity to sell certain assets at a specified date. I shall use the example that Lee and LiPuma use: “One might purchase a call option for $500 to buy one hundred shares of IBM at some future date for $100 a share  - the strike price. If at that future date IBM shares were valued at $120, the buyer would realise a profit ..” (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002:204) The process is far more complicated than this, but as you can see it seems as if profit or capital is being made from nothing. An abstract instrument which “circulates in its own universe”. (Benjamin and LiPuma 2002:204)

So now we can see the shift, capital is no longer solely created by productive labour, as the capital that was initially made off of the old model is now circulating in the market which has its own means of capital expansion (although Marx did predict this shift). There is no longer a need for those with monies to invest in productive labour, and when they do it is invested in bigger developing economies. The exploitation of labour now seems to be the in which newbie entrepreneurs can use in order to gain access into the new model. 

Where does that leave the masses of the unemployed youth? In yet another mode of estrangement, for without money they cannot enter into the new model of money for mahala in the market. And those in the market seem to be living in a different universe with minimal plans for the upliftment of the impoverished. Perhaps the time is coming where these two worlds will have to sever ties in order for the former to survive on their own terms without the influence of a greed driven economy on their minds. It is already happening in some parts of the world – as some are calling it “The Fourth World War.” And perhaps this is where a new imagining of the future could occur, outside of the system in developing a sustainable area – in terms of shelter and food supply - outside of governmental rule. Is it a better option than waiting around for the government to do something, or for the world to change?

The second option would be to look at Brazil’s rapidly increasing economy in 2010 due to their focus on agriculture and resources - with a current growth rate of 8.4% in their agricultural sphere. (Fick 2012) Although The Economist doubted the likelihood of the continuation of this boom which has now slowed down because of Brazil’s tendencies to save too much, invest too little, and spend dubiously to keep growth up, as well as their need for more skilled labour. (The Economist 2010) There is still room for learning from this example in the case of South Africa and other African nations when it comes to looking at how to re-involve the youth within the working sphere.

References

·         Fick, Jeff. March 2012. 2nd Update: Brazils’s Weak Industry Slows Once Booming Economy. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120306-708430.html

·         Jones, Michelle. 2011. Half of SA’s Youth are Unemployed. http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/half-of-sa-s-youth-are-unemployed-1.1019783

·         Lee, Benjamin and Edward LiPuma. 2002. “Cultures of Circulation: The Imaginations of Modernity.” Public Culture 14(1):191-213

·         Quarterly Labour Force Survey, Quarter 4 2011, www.statssa.gov.za

·         The Economist. May 2010. Brazil’s Booming Economy: Flying Too High For Safety. http://www.economist.com/node/16167612

The Body of Christ in a Mass Merchandised Burger

While reading Jean Comaroff’s paper on the Politics of Convinction I couldn’t shake the ghost of a passage in Robert M Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance. The passage goes as follows:

“You go through a heavy industrial area of a large city and there it all is, the technology. In front of it are high barbed wire fences, locked gates, signs saying NO TRESPASSING, and beyond, through sooty air, you see ugly strange shapes of metal and brick whose purpose is unknown, and whose masters you will never see. What it’s for you do not know, and why it’s there, there is no one to tell, and so all you can feel is alienated, estranged, as though you didn’t belong there. Who owns and understands this doesn’t want you around. All this technology has made you a stranger in your own land.”(Pirsig; 1976:16)

It was this idea of alienation from something so present in one’s society that really struck me. We never really think about how the structure and means of production are alienating – unless you read a lot of Marx. And I came to focus on the fast food industry and in particular about fast food’s being served with messages of the Lord on its packaging. And the connection between the known and the alienating force of the fast food industry. Processed food that bears no resemblance to a home cooked meal, or even the thing  which it is supposed to represent. If you have ever watched the movie Clerks 2 and seen a processed egg, which comes in the shape of a large polony roll, you will know what I’m talking about. There is something unnatural about it, yet you still eat it, but hate the fact that you are eating it. You know you shouldn’t, but it is convenient. Right there all the time, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. And you hate it, in a sense it alienates you from yourself with your love hate relationship with it. And then it started coming in religious wrappers as Comoroff puts it “mass-merchandised hamburgers now come wrapped in biblical homilies.” (Comoroff 2009; 18)

 Two thoughts occurred at this point in the text for me, firstly Comoroff’s point that religion had started using the means of capitalism to spread its word. This was nothing new, driving past Rhema Church on a regular basis you cannot help but be overwhelmed by their massive sign board slamming some message of faith into your brain whether you want it or not. But perhaps the extent that it is happening in the states is on a far more worrying scale as to make it seem like a cultural phenomenon to be examined. The second idea was this: Do those slogans of faith on one’s burger wrappers dealienate one from their processed food by putting something familiar on the face of an alienating product? Instead of thinking about the grossness of what one is about to eat, all the factory farming, deforestation, and general making into machinery that those employed by fast food establishments have to suffer, do people instead get distracted and think rather about their love or hate of religion? Or perhaps if God loves these burgers I can love them too? Seeing as I have not encountered this phenomena in South Africa, yet, I could not say from personal experience. But it seems like a canny means of shaking off the preconceived negative connotations that are attached to fast foods - by replacing them with positive messages of faith.

I guess at the end of it you really have to ask yourself “What would Jesus eat?”

References

·         Comaroff, Jean. 2009. “The politics of Convivtion: Faith on the neoliberal Frontier.” Social Analysis 53(1):17-38

·         Pirsig, Robert. M. 1976. “Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance.” Corgi Books: London