Book summary/ Review: In Search of the Good Life: the Ethics of Globalization, by Rebecca Todd Peters (NY: Continuum, 2004).

This morning's Melbourne Age has an article headed 'Indonesia plans to sue US mining giant over pollution.' 'The world's largest gold producer (Newmont) has been under investigation over charges that its Indonesian unit, Newmont Minhasa Raya, dumped toxic waste, causing fatal illnesses among residents near its mine on Sulawesi Island.'

~~~

We all saw, on TV, the 'Seattle battle' in November 1999, when people dressed as trees, bananas, clowns, monarch butterflies and sea turtles protested at the outcomes of corporate globalization. Why were they trying to disrupt the lawful pursuit of trade and wealth-creation?

Well, consider:

· Trading in foreign securities in the US was 2% of GNP in 1975; by 1997 it had risen to 213%

· By the late 1990s the world's highest-income one-fifth had 86% of the world's GDP - the bottom fifth just 1%

· Natural vanilla seeds grown in Madagascar sold on the world markets for $1200 a pound, but two U.S.-based biotechnology firms have developed a way to produce a genetically engineered version of vanilla for $25 a pound. One NGO estimates that more than 100,000 two-thirds world farmers will lose their livelihood as a result

· 35% of the earth's land is degraded: there, soil loss exceeds soil formation by at least ten times

· In Mexico City's worst pollution-days, half of its 18 million residents become sick with some respiratory ailment

· Nine of the world's seventeen major fishing grounds are in decline; four are already 'fished out' commercially

· More than 2,000 women, men and children died in oil pipeline explosions in Nigeria 1998-2000

Rebecca Todd Peters is a Christian feminist scholar, who writes from a 'postmodern' perspective (she is sceptical about grand narratives) and encourages a commitment to 'standpoint theory' (which is sceptical about 'objectivity' = 'a pristine. truth or position').

She describes four globalization theories, provides an economic and moral analysis of each, and suggests how 'globalization [may] proceed in ways that are grounded in values that prioritize a democratised understanding of power, encourage care for the planet, and enhance the social well-being of people.'

She suggests three underlying moral questions: 'What is our context for moral decision-making? What is the telos of human life? What constitutes human flourishing?'

Peters is primarily a theologian/ethicist, rather than an activist. (She offers very few strategies for opposing the injustices practised by transnational corporations like McDonald's or Monsanto or Nike!).

First, an all-too-simplified summary of her four theories of globalization:

1. 'Neoliberal' (theorized by Milton Friedman et. al., promoted by U S President Reagan and Britain's P M Thatcher, and conferenced at Breton Woods 1944 which established the World Bank and International Monetary Fund). Humans, according to the social elites who run big business, are primarily 'homo economicus' - desiring to gain wealth with as little labor as possible. Privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization and open economies on a 'level playing field' are at the heart of the neoliberal policy agenda. The theory is that economic growth will make more people wealthy, and as people get richer they'll want a cleaner environment. But, in the meantime, the environment is becoming degraded, and, overall, wealth isn't inevitably 'trickling down' to the world's poor. Big-business types have little contact with the social reality of the majority of the world's people. And economics is never 'value-free'. A functioning 'free market' is a fiction: some government involvement is inevitable (conservatives favour as little as possible; liberals advocate a stronger role for government). McNamara's World Bank tossed billions of dollars of loans into the 'two-thirds' world. Result: 'Many of the projects displaced whole communities of people, destroyed environment resources, or were so mismanaged they had to be abandoned.' The moral vision of the neoliberal model emphasizes individualistic self-interest, the value of prosperity as the chief end (or 'telos') of human life, and (capitalistic) freedom to seek personal and private goals.

2. 'Development' models share a confidence in neoclassical principles, but move beyond 'laissez-faire' to recognize the responsibility of governments to protect/care for the most marginalized members of society. The 'era of development' was launched by Harry Truman (1949) who articulated humanity's moral obligation to help the less fortunate (the impetus) through the market's ability to provide greater prosperity (the means). But the failure of neoliberalism, after the greatest migrations in history - from rural to urban areas - led in the 1990s to a major push for sustainable development, and strong calls for debt forgiveness. Economic health is more than a measure of GDP: it should also take account of indicators of longevity, education, and income per head (Human Development Index, or 'HDI'). 'Lean and mean' corporations 'downsize', subcontract work out to the lowest bidder, relocate for tax breaks and cheap labor (often where governments can't or won't protect the rights of the poor, or the earth). Results? Terrible smog in Mexico City, indigenous peoples ripped off, 'casino capitalism', an international sex/slave trade etc. The HDR 1999 expressed it well: 'The real wealth of a nation is its people. Development [ought to] create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives.'

3. 'Earthist' theo-ethical thinkers assert that 'profit is not king', and that the earth and creation are centrally important to a sustainable moral vision for our future. All of life is imbued with sacredness. Environmental or earth justice are concerned about the fate of people - especially those who for generations have lived 'nearer the earth'; about the land on which they live, and the creatures with which they share the land. Ecologist Thomas Berry says we must move 'from our human-centred to an earth-centred norm of reality and value.' The survival of our planet and the life forms it sustains (including our own) are in peril. Further, 'environmental racism refers to the reality that poor, disadvantaged, and minority communities or "two-thirds" world communities receive the brunt of exposure to environmental toxins and wastes.' Another worrying phenomenon is the production of genetically modified plants. Monsanto has produced seeds genetically engineered to produce seedless crops: so poor farmers have to continually buy more seed from this very rich transnational company. There are strong moves around the two-thirds world to shift economies back towards the production of food and products for local consumption, and to encourage 'family farms' - 'farming with a face on it' - again. It is a 'given' now that the problem of food supply in our world is not one of quantity but rather one of distribution. In summary, the three core values of the earthist vision of the good life are mutuality, justice, and sustainability.

4. 'Postcolonial' theory addresses the plight of the disenfranchised in the two-thirds world whose poverty is related to the destruction of their traditions and cultures by neo-colonial globalization practices. Proponents of this view are highly critical of Eurocentric historiography. This 'subaltern' view of history is 'from the bottom' - the perspective of those whose lands were stolen by European conquerors. More recently, traditional cultures have been seriously threatened by Western media images of affluence and adventure, luring millions of young people away from their villages/communities to the cities to seek their fortunes. At the same time, Western-educated professionals returned to their home countries and moved into positions of power and influence in government and business, often encouraging indebtedness without concomitant cuts in expenditures, thus falling under the power of the lending countries. Whereas in 'colonial' times power was enforced by colonial armies; power is now ultimately wielded by transnational corporations, which commodifies, trivializes or supplants local culture. ('Kids on the screen in Tokyo have more in common with kids on the screen in London than they do with their parents' - an MTV executive). So the question for grassroots communities is: 'Does hegemonic neocolonial globalization symbolized by Coca Cola and McDonalds offer the 'good life'? How can traditional communities nurture and transmit their precious historical culture in the face of this massive tsunami of global neocolianlism? Western individualistic notions of 'telos' are linked with what we DO; in traditional cultures they're rather who we ARE in relationship with others.

MOVING FORWARD: The Good Life for Whom? While September 11, 2001 is, for Americans as 'the day the world changed', innocents in their thousands - whose lives we will never see - are dying every day from preventible diseases, poverty and starvation. The neoliberal vision of the good life is only accessible to the richest 10% of the world's people.

Peters calls for power-sharing, in the context of community, and a ceding of power from the global to the local. The 'market' cannot be trusted to solve poverty and environmental problems. In other words the neoliberal vision of the good life is 'morally bankrupt on the grounds that it is incompatible with the image of the good life rooted in the Christian tradition that is oriented toward caring for our neighbour and for creation in addition to ourselves.'

Development Globalization with its vision of responsibility, progress and equity, again, must be more critical of economic 'growth/profit' paradigms, and must 'place the earth and all of creation at the center of the moral world.' '[This] approach fails in that it uncritically accepts the possibility that capitalism can be regulated in ways that allow for justice.'

The two capitalistic theories assume a fallacy: that continually rising living standards are a prima facie good. They do not like the question 'How much is enough?' Both of these theories are incongruent with a democratized understanding of power, care for the planet, and the social well-being of people.

The Earthist paradigm, with its commitment to mutuality, justice and sustainability, involves a belief that 'people who are affected by decision-making processes have relevant wisdom to contribute to the conversation. Transnational corporate governance negates local knowledge, livelihood and sustainability.'

Postcolonial Globalization arises from a recognition of the mistreatment and abuse of marginalized people in the global South, and argues that 'many of the social changes that have contributed to a loss of community in the modern era can be traced to the effects of corporate globalization.' It emphasizes the values of community, a respect for culture, communal autonomy, and the democratization of power (involving local people in decision-making). This vision is also implicitly ecocentric.

So a fundamental ideological divide separates the neoliberal and development models of globalization, and the two 'resistance positions'. 'Reform' of capitalist systems is probably not possible, says Peters, given the power of individualism and greed. So any strategy for moving forward must involve dialogue and strategy-building between the adherents of the Earthist and Postcolonial models, affirming the value of voluntary simplicity, but also addressing structural injustice wherever it exists. Peters resists the notion that all this is naïve or utopian or both: we desperately need 'a new paradigm of globalization [reimagining] the spheres of economics, politics and civil society.' We must affirm that the ultimate purpose of business should not be simply to make money, or be simply a system of making and selling things. Business ought to increase the general well-being of humankind, which includes meaningful work, safe working conditions, a living wage, respecting cultural diversity, listening to the voices of the marginalized, and restructuring towards genuine democratization (which is implicit in the biblical vision of justice).

We must face the stark recognition, she writes, that 'the earth cannot sustain continued growth and industrial capitalism in its present form, but equally important is our recognition that the human spirit cannot sustain the fragmented and atomized social order generated by the current models of globalization.'

So a serious question has to be 'How much profit is enough?' 'The sins of overconsumption, indifference, and greed are. subtly woven into the fabric of our culture, and even our religion.'

This book is not an easy read for two reasons: the 'shame factor' of course, and also it's probably too close to 'academic dissertation language'. Someone like David Suzuki or E F Schumacher or Ralph Nader might have made it more palatable for the general reader. It's a theoretical approach, so there are few if any suggestions about how ordinary folks like us can engage in the battle for community and justice and the survival of the planet. There is also no coherent exposition of a paradigm of Biblical/Christian ethics: we have to pick up clues scattered throughout the book. But Rebecca Todd Peters is nothing if not passionate. She is another prophet who might just be on to something, and we'd better 'listen up' (as the Americans put it) before global catastrophe strikes.

Discuss:

1. According to Ayn Rand, laissez-faire capitalism is the system in which individuals produce goods and services that they trade with one another based on mutual consent, not on the use of force or fraud. Capitalism is a moral system based on respect for the equal rights of individuals to pursue their own rational self-interest, and it rewards people for their achievements. Political philosopher and Ayn Rand expert, Dr. Edward Hudgins notes, "Rand was virtually alone in celebrating the virtues of productive, innovative individuals and the wealth they create." So what's wrong with that?

2. Where would you fit Australian Prime Minister John Howard's and Treasurer Peter Costello's Industrial Relations vision for Australia into the four schemas above?

3. 'Economics is a discipline, a field of study, to help people attain their goals; it is not, or should not be, the ideology that sets those goals' (Sallie McFague). Discuss.

4. Will greed and self-interest on a massive scale be solved by discussion/debate? Or is some deeper 'spiritual surgery' required?

5. What can one person do about structural injustice in our society?

6. Jesus expected his disciples to discern the 'signs of the times': "You can look at the earth and the sky and predict the weather; why, then, don't you know the meaning of this present time?" (Luke 12:56). Identify two or three of the dominant "Powers that Be" on the global scene. Which of the four theories of globalization seems to be driving the behaviour of each one?

7. Which of the four theories of globalization most closely aligns with Jesus' teaching and demonstration of the Kingdom of God? Which is the least aligned?

8. Review "Powers that Be" on the global scene identified in response to Question 6, and their apparent driving ideologies, in the light of your answers to Question 7. Can you discern whether each is likely to be promoting or hindering the emergence of the Kingdom of God?

9. Imagine a group of committed Christians who hold exactly the opposite viewpoints to your group, i.e. they arrive at completely different answers to Question 8 than your group, and moreover they support their position with multiple scripture references. How would you engage in constructive dialogue with such a group?

10. Do you believe in the value of "free enterprise" (i.e. independent business centres of creativity)? If so list the positive features of such business organizations which would encourage you to be involved with integrity. Do the same positives apply to a publicly traded corporation? Consider this statement by Anita Roddick, founder of "The Body Shop" (and later voted off her own Board - her philosophy was to negotiate win/win agreements with her suppliers in Third World - too generous!): "This obsession for maximizing profits to shareholders has got to be seen as abusive, as dangerous, and as one of the most appalling situations on this planet, because it makes for criminal behaviour".

11. If you had some responsibility for Career Guidance in a Christian or State secondary school, how would reading this book affect your presentation of alternatives to senior students making careeer choices?

12. Assume you chose "Accountancy" after leaving school. Now at 30 and well qualified, you have been offered a job with a transnational corporation with considerable career prospects. How would reading this book affect the questions you ask before your decision? What issues does it raise for you?

13. Individuals and churches are "small change" when it comes to global issues, and it can seem "all too much"! Can your group share information about larger groups like "Micah Challenge", or AFTINET (Australians for Fair Trade & Investment Network)... groups that are well-informed and focussed upon where action is needed against exploitation or environmental vandalism.

14. Governments, both State and Commonwealth, claim that they can legislate to protect against any damaging consequences of the actions of global corporations focussed only on making extortionate profits. From your awareness of recent and current events, how effective is any government control? Who determines, and how do they arrive at, the values which underpin government regulatory control over global corporations?

(Thanks to three friends who suggested some of these questions).

Rowland Croucher

March 2005