Orwellian Corruption of Irish Society

I've been thinking about how our society is changing over the last few decades and how debate and discussion, or often the lack of it, has developed alongside the responses by the body politic in relation to economic, financial and ethicial matters. But first I will define corruption not as some sort of expolsive scandal that provokes a tribunal, for example, but a more mundane deterioration of systematical beliefs and social norms or whatever one believes is a framework for social interaction. I'm thinking much more in terms of the corruption of a computer disk, for example, than I am of the Bishop marrying his first cousin.

I suppose the first thing to tackle is the apparent and inherent notion that for something to be corruptable it has to first be in a state of perfection or at least in a state that has positive aspects which can be eroded or disfigured. As society and its norms is fraught with frailties, none more so than the individuals who make up the society, I'm of the belief that society can't be measured in terms of perfection but at best in terms of utility outcomes. I make my measurement of the positive impacts of any project contingent in terms of immediate utility (job, investment returns, etc.) and on a wider impact in terms of how a project might be beneficial on national cost structures and geopolitical power plays.

This means that we make choices as individuals that first satisfy our own needs and then in a wider social arena. So I might, for example, support Shell and their project in the Corrib gas fields. While I might not believe that it has an immediate positive impact, a job or the sale of land, I believe that only a big conglomerate has the expertise to carry out the project. Furthermore, the project will result in the nation developing a source of energy which will cost me less and make me less dependent on foreign sources of energy and thus makes me a de facto player in a geopolitical power struggle who holds aces in my hand rather than a defensive and vaulnerable player holding dueces.

I'd also identify a third level of positive outcomes which is much more esocteric and not as measureable. It would be a belief that only bigger, more heavily funded and centralised organisation has the means to develop expertise and to deploy the expertise in order to exploit a project that is beneficial in the larger social arena. While I might acknowledge that the big organisation isn't concerned with my immediate needs it nevertheless has a positive impact by the very nature of its size and I associate size with expertise and the ability to exploit projects. Bigger = Better.

Do we take notice of the soft message of congolmerate these days? BP has a good advert running at the moment. Lovely lady, and others, talking about the history and expertise of BP and how they exploit the natural environment for the good of society. It's meant to be an environmentally focused message but the subtext is much more interesting. The size of BP and its the long history of exploration and use of oil resources is envoked. To my mind this is the real message. "Only us big experts know what's best for society because we have the expertise to exploit the resources. Leave it to us."

For the sake of brevity. Why Ireland is being fundamentally corrupted.

1. Centralisation - too much power concentrated in too few hands

2. Mediasation - Bought and controlled by too few individuals. Investigative jounalism is dead. The news is essentially syndicated throughout the country and a pre-packaged message delivered on a daily basis which supports the centralisation message (an other tangental issues) in a variety of non-related news stories.

3. Merchantilism - Acknowledgement that we will not be able to compete industrially. We've adopted a supply chain and demand lead economy. Every "national" project is orientated to the merchantilist model. Homes are built with proximty of the new shopping centres in mind. Roads are built with the intention of making the shopping centre accessible and with supply chain parameters to the forefront. Schools, hospitals and other social ammenities are an afterthougt or non-existant.

4. Democratic Deficit - Voting is seen to be an increasingly futile exercise, often eschewed by many, and policy makers often persue their own agendas anyway. Most Western opposition parties are hardly distinguisable from the ruling parties

5. Expertism - It seems no news program will be without the "expert" person or panel these day. Are "experts" naturally unbaised? The term "expert" implies impartiality. I, for one, don't believe this. He who chooses the expert chooses the topic and the opinions which will originate.

6. Barristerism and Qauntiativism - The idea that every utility value in society has to have a Euro sign attached to it or at least be arguablely logical even though the arguments are often skewed by selective "experts" opinions and any alternative viewpoint ignored.

The upshot, it's funny (strange sort of way) in which Orwell's society has come to pass without much notice. Our airwaves are full of sub-textual proganda. The survelliance society is highly engrained and envoked to protect individuals. Goverments, despite democracry, do pretty much whatever they want. Apathy and lethargy are becoming the biggest political parties. A high order of good (utility) has been established whereby the expertise of the large organisation must be respected and courted at all costs. In short, while most of us monkies scramble for peanuts, the few organ grinders are molding a world in which it appears they are ordering a society that will protect ourselves from ourselves but which in reality is protecting the interests of the few from the needs of the many. You have to wonder how its going to end.

Am I being overly optomistic?

Stay away from the razorblades today rocky!

There's no doubt that the conditions are very ripe for a breakdown in community given the many things you say above, most frighteningly in how we unconsciously adopt certain norms from a surveillance society based on CCTV-fixes (not always a bad thing) which puts a high emphasis on monetary value and price. There is also the knowledge/education divide ..

You have written about money education here before and how we seem to have very little overall awareness of money terms like 'inflation' and it's generally true also that few of us seem to know how much interest we're paying on our debts. Plus, there's such a proliferation of credit cards and charges that, coupled with apathy and you find yourself getting ripped off in a substantial but non-fatal way that, if multiplied across society reaps a huge windfall for banks and other companies even the likes of Eircom who tried to do me out of 15 quid on my last bill all of a sudden.

It's the apathy that's the issue isn't it? This could be the crux of the thing where we 'settle' for a certain conditions but those conditions are possibly being changed gradually to become more and more socially divisive. For example, as you say about a large group having expertise, some of our institutions should or could either directly protect us from badly advertised bank deals where you think your credit card is 9.5% interest but ends up at 23% because you've been lazy about looking at the small print. What's the use hundreds of thousands of people having to read the same small print ?! Those hundreds of thousands of people could have a law passed about clarity of advertising which possibly exists in the UK (?) where someone selling you something has to make it as clear as possible to you. Of course, if companies wanted to make it 100% clear to you then they could and some companies do that through useful advertising - BT for example, whose ads have disappeared from RTE I notice ...

I don't like it that there is this element of fuzziness about such knowledge but it's not surprising given that up to 25% of our population has some literacy problems. If you scan for NALA or national adult literacy agency you'll see they produce such a shocking figure. Are we easy enough prey for those who can take advantage?

It might be just easier to ask someone but is it just my opinion or could people give less of a f* about talking about politics and money in this country than they could about the poor people of China? I'm in my mid thirties and with a lot of peers I have to tolerate inane conversations most of the time. But of course if there was a culture of talking about politics then that might be too disruptive for those who no doubt are in control. Talking about politics in my circle and you're seen as a headcase or worse 'a disturber' and a whiner etc. On the other hand, is the political news presented in such a way that it's hard to actually learn who is who, what they stand for, what department who works for. This could be an advantage for Gormley as he's making a lot of news and his party/department have the same super/subscript. On the other hand it might be easier to attack him like the councillor did in Cork yesterday. Not all visibility is good.

Into the bargain we feel less that we make our own wealth and are in control of it than that it is given to us and that we shouldn't rock the boat because it's there by the grace of some other. This is wrong. We are left with the inability to ask questions like 'why is the emperor naked?' and often we don't know how to phrase those questions and if we do we are told 'there is a charge for that under the FOI act' or 'there will be a charge for that info but we don't know how much it will be'.

I must head off for the razorblades myself ...

rockyracoon wrote:

1. Centralisation - too much power concentrated in too few hands

What does this actually mean? Who are the too few hands?

Quote :

2. Mediasation - Bought and controlled by too few individuals. Investigative jounalism is dead. The news is essentially syndicated throughout the country and a pre-packaged message delivered on a daily basis which supports the centralisation message (an other tangental issues) in a variety of non-related news stories.

That's increasingly out of date in the internet age. Investigative journalism in the MSM might be dead but a whole plethora of new news outlets have flourished in an age where multimedia websites become possible. From The Huffington Post to the ICH, Slate and beyond, a whole swathe of new information distributors have arisen. This has reduced the level by which poor standards in the MSM can affect the news-consuming whole. In any case, I find that my daily paper, the Irish Times, is a fine newspaper full of interesting and well thought out articles on a whole variety of subjects. It gives me a reasonable and nuanced view on global events and it is rather good as a tool to inform your thinking.

Quote :

3. Merchantilism - Acknowledgement that we will not be able to compete industrially. We've adopted a supply chain and demand lead economy. Every "national" project is orientated to the merchantilist model. Homes are built with proximty of the new shopping centres in mind. Roads are built with the intention of making the shopping centre accessible and with supply chain parameters to the forefront. Schools, hospitals and other social ammenities are an afterthougt or non-existant.

I find it difficult to take the idea that we cannot compete industrially seriously. Whether it's medical devices, electronic engineering, software, digital media, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, Ireland is a world leader and is host to a large industry in each of the areas I've mentioned. I don't know how the idea that roads and houses are built with shopping centres in mind is necessarily bad thing. People like and need to shop for things and we should be looking to make that convenient.

Quote :

4. Democratic Deficit - Voting is seen to be an increasingly futile exercise, often eschewed by many, and policy makers often persue their own agendas anyway. Most Western opposition parties are hardly distinguisable from the ruling parties

That's also out-of-date. If you look at any major election of the past few years, an important trend of rising turnout unites them all. The French presidential election, the UK local elections of 2008, the primary seasons of 2008, our general election in 2007 and the Lisbon Treaty had a very large turnout. The worm has turned on this issue and there has been a new-found interest in politics which is leading to turnouts improve by several percentage points. And how, exactly, are most Western opposition parties indistinguishable? And is that really a bad thing? If voters want a reasonable, broadly centrist political settlement then parties are merely reflecting the popular will. Why would the opposition party set themselves at odds with a position which the people want? Parties are in the business of being elected, not engaging in ideological pole-vaulting. Indeed it can be argued that a stable political settlement is a good thing since it is propitious for a generally positive economic environment. The stability of our economic policy regardless of which party or parties in power has been identified as a key element in our economic success over the years.

Quote :

5. Expertism - It seems no news program will be without the "expert" person or panel these day. Are "experts" naturally unbaised? The term "expert" implies impartiality. I, for one, don't believe this. He who chooses the expert chooses the topic and the opinions which will originate.

And most balance by having experts of differing opinion discussing the same topic. The news program isn't qualified to discuss on its own matters as diverse as climate change, economic policy, international affairs and science so they look outwards to get those in the know to speak about these subjects.

Quote :

You have to wonder how its going to end.

Oh everything's going to end with God wiping away this world and defeating evil so that we can live in the New Jerusalem so, in the long term, things are sweet!

rockyracoon wrote:

I've been thinking about how our society is changing over the last few decades and how debate and discussion, or often the lack of it, has developed alongside the responses by the body politic in relation to economic, financial and ethicial matters. But first I will define corruption not as some sort of expolsive scandal that provokes a tribunal, for example, but a more mundane deterioration of systematical beliefs and social norms or whatever one believes is a framework for social interaction. I'm thinking much more in terms of the corruption of a computer disk, for example, than I am of the Bishop marrying his first cousin.

I suppose the first thing to tackle is the apparent and inherent notion that for something to be corruptable it has to first be in a state of perfection or at least in a state that has positive aspects which can be eroded or disfigured. As society and its norms is fraught with frailties, none more so than the individuals who make up the society, I'm of the belief that society can't be measured in terms of perfection but at best in terms of utility outcomes. I make my measurement of the positive impacts of any project contingent in terms of immediate utility (job, investment returns, etc.) and on a wider impact in terms of how a project might be beneficial on national cost structures and geopolitical power plays.

This means that we make choices as individuals that first satisfy our own needs and then in a wider social arena. So I might, for example, support Shell and their project in the Corrib gas fields. While I might not believe that it has an immediate positive impact, a job or the sale of land, I believe that only a big conglomerate has the expertise to carry out the project. Furthermore, the project will result in the nation developing a source of energy which will cost me less and make me less dependent on foreign sources of energy and thus makes me a de facto player in a geopolitical power struggle who holds aces in my hand rather than a defensive and vaulnerable player holding dueces.

I'd also identify a third level of positive outcomes which is much more esocteric and not as measureable. It would be a belief that only bigger, more heavily funded and centralised organisation has the means to develop expertise and to deploy the expertise in order to exploit a project that is beneficial in the larger social arena. While I might acknowledge that the big organisation isn't concerned with my immediate needs it nevertheless has a positive impact by the very nature of its size and I associate size with expertise and the ability to exploit projects. Bigger = Better.

Do we take notice of the soft message of congolmerate these days? BP has a good advert running at the moment. Lovely lady, and others, talking about the history and expertise of BP and how they exploit the natural environment for the good of society. It's meant to be an environmentally focused message but the subtext is much more interesting. The size of BP and its the long history of exploration and use of oil resources is envoked. To my mind this is the real message. "Only us big experts know what's best for society because we have the expertise to exploit the resources. Leave it to us."

For the sake of brevity. Why Ireland is being fundamentally corrupted.

1. Centralisation - too much power concentrated in too few hands

2. Mediasation - Bought and controlled by too few individuals. Investigative jounalism is dead. The news is essentially syndicated throughout the country and a pre-packaged message delivered on a daily basis which supports the centralisation message (an other tangental issues) in a variety of non-related news stories.

3. Merchantilism - Acknowledgement that we will not be able to compete industrially. We've adopted a supply chain and demand lead economy. Every "national" project is orientated to the merchantilist model. Homes are built with proximty of the new shopping centres in mind. Roads are built with the intention of making the shopping centre accessible and with supply chain parameters to the forefront. Schools, hospitals and other social ammenities are an afterthougt or non-existant.

4. Democratic Deficit - Voting is seen to be an increasingly futile exercise, often eschewed by many, and policy makers often persue their own agendas anyway. Most Western opposition parties are hardly distinguisable from the ruling parties

5. Expertism - It seems no news program will be without the "expert" person or panel these day. Are "experts" naturally unbaised? The term "expert" implies impartiality. I, for one, don't believe this. He who chooses the expert chooses the topic and the opinions which will originate.

6. Barristerism and Qauntiativism - The idea that every utility value in society has to have a Euro sign attached to it or at least be arguablely logical even though the arguments are often skewed by selective "experts" opinions and any alternative viewpoint ignored.

The upshot, it's funny (strange sort of way) in which Orwell's society has come to pass without much notice. Our airwaves are full of sub-textual proganda. The survelliance society is highly engrained and envoked to protect individuals. Goverments, despite democracry, do pretty much whatever they want. Apathy and lethargy are becoming the biggest political parties. A high order of good (utility) has been established whereby the expertise of the large organisation must be respected and courted at all costs. In short, while most of us monkies scramble for peanuts, the few organ grinders are molding a world in which it appears they are ordering a society that will protect ourselves from ourselves but which in reality is protecting the interests of the few from the needs of the many. You have to wonder how its going to end.

Am I being overly optomistic?

I think you are describing where things are going, or have gone. I'm not saying that its alright for politicians to take pay offs, but it is small beer compared with the overall trashing of social responsibility and shared objectives. It's the society in which there is a denial that there is such a thing as society (after Thatcher). The idea that immediate self interest of individuals should decide everything is handy for the powerful, as they are able to exert their interest most powerfully. The idea of being genuinely productive and paying our way doesn't seem to come into it. Anything that was formerly common property is being privatised. If they could make us pay for oxygen, they would. The political processes are more and more subordinate to the economic decision makers, who are not elected.

A lot of people are not at all happy with that, and as Slimbuddha has pointed out, there are some governments that are digging their heels in against it.
The most marked thing in the vote against Lisbon was the division between people who have benefited from the boom and those who hadn't.

I think overall we get the journalists and the elected politicians we deserve, anyone who isn't happy has the option of getting involved and wising up.

Fun and games ahead.

cactus flower wrote:

I think you are describing where things are going, or have gone. I'm not saying that its alright for politicians to take pay offs, but it is small beer compared with the overall trashing of social responsibility and shared objectives. It's the society in which there is a denial that there is such a thing as society (after Thatcher)

Thatcher is frequently misquoted when it comes to saying, "there is no such thing as society" and, when you look at the quote in context, it makes much more sense and her comments are altogether more reasonable.

For those unable or unwilling to look for the full quote

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Though it need not be said, I fully agree.

Thanks cookiemonster: that confirms she was neither misquoted, nor out of context - but engaged as I said in "the overall trashing of social responsibility and shared objectives".

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks cookiemonster: that confirms she was neither misquoted, nor out of context - but engaged as I said in "the overall trashing of social responsibility and shared objectives".

I think she is promoting personal responsibility, to say that people first have a responsibility to look after themselves before the fall back on society.

We should have more participatory voting on a formal basis - it devolves responsibility to people and broadens knowledge. There is no reason why we can't have it at a more local level but it won't come anytime soon for the level of apathy that is out there.

I'd expect it to come through the likes of the Greens who want more power on a more local basis - I'd also expect that their attempts at the creation of mayoral offices which hold more power than current mayors, if successful (they won't be in the mid-west because of the turkeys/christmas argument), should be a stepping stone for even more participation and widening of democracy but that might take time.

Something has to break on this soon, it's really shite the way it is.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks cookiemonster: that confirms she was neither misquoted, nor out of context - but engaged as I said in "the overall trashing of social responsibility and shared objectives".

I think she is promoting personal responsibility, to say that people first have a responsibility to look after themselves before the fall back on society.

My interest, rather than how people feel about themselves, is how were they doing, and what were the social impacts of her policies. The notion of "personal responsibilty" in this context I don't get. Are you suggesting that people get into poverty because they are feckless? With most people, it is illness or changing patterns of employment that are way outside their control.

Quote :

The people who most lost out over the Thatcher period, relative to everyone else, were those who were unfortunate enough to be unemployed (up from 52% to 71%) , disabled, amongst the long-term sick or a non-working single parent (up from 36% to 51%) or over the age of 60 (up from 19% to 31%).

This post, illustrated with many excellent graphs, shows how Thatchers ideology drove the most vulnerable into an underclass. In my view it is irresponsible of those with plenty of resources to deny any responsibility for wider social outcomes.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/08/29/inequality-and-the-80s/