Shock Doctrine
The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein. This brief video was put on YouTube two days ago and was sent my way by Liz Blum. We start with electroshock therapy and a connection is revealed between that form of treatment and CIA experiments on torture; and then, the shock doctrine in torture is related to the shock doctrine of free market economy preached by Milton Friedman. Does one argument lead seamlessly to the other? The metaphor of shock is a powerful one, and the film-makers exploit it to provoke a connection that is—well, shocking. I hope it sparks debates everywhere.
I think Naomi Klein is the Arundhati Roy of Canada. If her book is an extension of this video, it is certainly not worth reading! Leaps of logic are fine in imaginative novels. Not in works that claim to be non-fictional. We know the CIA failed to connect dots before 9/11. This video connects so many dots it looks like a Jackson Pollock painting!
Comment by Salil Tripathi — September 9, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Klein links shock to bad decisions and irrational thinking, yet her own way of putting forward her views is purposefully shocking - including the footage of the plane flying into the WTC. This is completely self-contradictory.
As to the idea that true change comes from crisis, it is completely reasonable, and it has worked in every direction. When a policy has been adopted that has problems, it usually stands in place until its self contradictions make it untenable.
Comment by Maria — September 9, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I think Naomi Klein is the Arundhati Roy of everywhere right now.
As to the idea that “true change comes from crisis”, love relationships are often the most profoundly changing things in many people’s lives, and they seldom come about because of crisis.
And talking about the deceitful and manipulative use of false crisis to induce selfishly orientated change will entail by necessity illustrations of the crisis moments, thus Klein’s use of the WTC footage.
Friedman et al. have butchered the world for their own selfish aggrandizement, and Naomi Klein is a consistently heroic voice in opposition to that butchery.
Comment by Roy Belmont — September 10, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Roy,
In that case my sympathies to people everywhere - if they have to deal with not one, but two such individuals - Ms Roy and Ms Klein.
The Chinese character for crisis also means opportunity, and indeed, even in deeply personal situations (like love, grief, etc), a crisis presents an opportunity. Crisis compels change; crisis is the result of something having gone horribly bad, irrespective of who is responsible for having caused it. After that, one can continue with the status quo, or make a radical shift.
Are you really suggesting that the attacks on the US on 9/11 represented a false crisis? You and I would not be able to have a civilized discussion in which we disagree with one another, if the guys who sent those planes have their way. One of us, and probably both of us, would have significantly diverse and rich views separating “us” from “them” to be considered victims by them.
Friedman never butchered anybody. Stalin did, Hitler did, Pol Pot did, Pinochet did. Friedman reminded governments that people, at heart, are selfish, and like doing things for self-aggrandizement. When left free to choose, they pursue their own ends, and improve their own lives. Naomi Klein’s prescriptions place the collective as more important than an individual. I’m sorry; I disagree.
As one who claims to be critical of market-based economics, she has used publishers, marketing gimmicks, book launches, etc, with the same elan of, say, Friedman himself. She is a beneficiary of capitalism, doing quite well in the system she says she despises. Those who live in glass houses, etc…
Salil
Comment by Salil Tripathi — September 10, 2007 @ 3:20 am
Friedman reminded governments that people, at heart, are selfish, and like doing things for self-aggrandizement.
Klein has it somewhat differently. She seems to find that Friedman reminded people that governments at heart, are selfish, and like doing things for self-aggrandizement. .
I would suggest a distinction between crisis and shock. In a crisis, those under duress can come together, determine the problem, the need, and begin collectively to address it.
In shock treatment, there is the shockee, who is being actively, deliberately broken down, and the shocker, who is entirely in control of the immediate situation. There is no moment of sharing the affliction, of colloquy, of concerted effort.
I’ve not read Klein’s book, but in reminding us to be vigilant toward the rhetoric of crisis and its political exploiters, an important factor for me in evaluating its import would be whether she respects the difference outlined.
Comment by tom — September 10, 2007 @ 9:25 am
Tom, That she does: she believes collective efforts to respond to the Argentine crisis - such as workers taking over plants that were no longer economic - worked, and individualistic efforts would not have. But the central problem with collective approach is the assumption that everyone will make similar effort, and get - and want - similar outcome, and individual preferences don’t matter.
The failure of Communism, the continued lack of success of socialism, show that at heart, people are individualistic, and respond to selfish motives. Socialism and communism are remain utopian. They don’t work because selfish motives lead folks at the top to become corrupt, once they are in control of allocating what others need and later, what others should need and want, and determine on behalf of others. Everything cannot be decided by a group; some delegation is always necessary, otherwise we’d have votes on every issue.
Klein underplays this aspect, and glorifies those who believe in collectivism, implying that if only we give up the capitalist model, life would be simpler and great. I grew up in socialist India; I have friends who grew up in Communist East Bloc and the former Soviet Union. Our life experiences tell us that the grass on our side wasn’t green, though it may have seemed so to Klein, who grew up in a capitalist society (Canada) and lived under the shadow of another society that celebrates only capitalism.
I’m not suggesting that the capitalist model is the best one: it does create huge inequalities and we do need other instruments for social justice. But you can redistribute wealth, not poverty; and collectivist solutions lead us towards sustainable - poverty.
Salil
Comment by Salil Tripathi — September 11, 2007 @ 3:10 am
Klein has proven to be a superb online marketer, packing her Website with thinking dynamite. The viral video is a clever marketing tool and may just spark a revival of the short film - on the Web.
Comment by Khengze Teoh — October 21, 2007 @ 3:28 am