Kyle Bibby
Trade has occurred throughout human history. As early as the Stone Age, materials such as flint and obsidian were traded and jewellery making materials have been traded in Egypt since 3000AD. Never in human history, however, has the act of exchanging one thing for another been so complex, or so fundamental in the functioning of the Western World. Capitalism is a system that relies on the exchange of capital for services or products. The ongoing search for ways of making money has had some positive effects – technological advancements in medical equipment would never have been possible without the profit incentive and better forms of transport allow trade with other countries extremely easy, raising the standard of living in the west higher than its ever been.
While (most of) the West is prosperous, roughly half of the world is living in poverty – according to The World Bank, in 2001 2.7 billion people had consumption levels of less than 2 dollars a day. Capitalism, by its very nature exploits the less privileged in order to make the privileged richer. It has created a world where the richest three people have as much wealth as the poorest 45 countries, with 8 million people dying annually because they simply cannot afford to live (The World Bank, 2008).
My personal view is that Capitalism, like many systems (such as Communism and Anarchism) could work, at least as far as providing the whole world with adequate food and shelter. However, it would need those in charge, which Marxist and Post-Marxist theory would suggest is the owners of the means of production, to act responsibly and show compassion towards the resources they were exploiting. While Marxism is a theory based on revolution, it is the aim of many Post-Marxists to, due of the decline of revolutionary potential in the West, attempt to incorporate Marxist ideas into Capitalism. For the purposes of this essay I will use the term ‘capitalism’ to refer to ‘irresponsible capitalism’
Capitalism exploits both the ‘Developed World’, by trapping people in a ‘false consciousness’, and the ‘Developing World’ by targeting countries with little regard for human rights (or desperate for income), where the labour is cheap and there is little legislation regarding the practise of factories.
The resources that are exploited are not only human. Every company exploits the Earth’s natural resources in some way. Each year 3.2 billion metric tons of Carbon Dioxide is added to the Earth’s atmosphere. Animals are also exploited horribly. Billions of animals live short lives in small cages, suffer various mutilations, before being killed for food. There are no health benefits of eating meat, meaning that the suffering of billions of animals is completely unnecessary.
While the world is, metaphorically, getting smaller, it is amazing how inward looking Western society is. Capitalism presents life as a struggle for wealth and status, and we are told (through institutions such as advertising, school, the workplace and religion) that to achieve these things we must involve ourselves in the endless buying of products that we have no real need for. Herbet Marcuse (1964, quoted in Wikipedia, 2007) argues that “advanced industrial society” makes life for its citizens “one-dimensional”, and that it is not until people are freed from the economy, and realise that they don’t have to spend their lives working for things that they don’t need, that they will be truly free.
Immanuel Kant (1785, quoted in Wikiquote, 2008) believed that freedom was directly connected with morality, and that morality was based on a rational system. Kant (1785, quoted in Seifert, 2004) tells us to “act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature” – to imagine, before doing anything, the outcome of everybody in the world doing the same thing. He also says that we should “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end and never as means only,” which has particular relevance when talking about capitalism.
I believe that it is the inability to see past “one dimensional” society, and to think rationally that restricts people from seeing the true damage that their support of the Capitalist system brings – seemingly to the everything other than the a few of the Western elite.
The documentary Black Gold, by directors Marc and Nick Francis (2006), highlights perfectly the problems that Western Capitalism causes for the Third World, as well as the general ignorance of the affluent. It follows a group of ‘Fair Trade’ Coffee growers in Ethiopia struggling to make ends meet. In one particularly poignant conversation with the Union Manager, the workers are asked how much a cup of ‘Fari Trade’ coffee (made from their beans) is sold for in America. They are shocked to hear him tell them that a cup of coffee costs around $2.90 in America, there are 80 cups worth in each sack, meaning that a sack is sold for roughly $230 dollars. The farmers claim that they are yet to be paid (the equivalent of) $0.57. Another important moment is the coverage of the World Trade Organization conference, where the developing nations have minimal representation in comparison to the EU and the US. The issues that the developing countries attempted to raise seemed to fall on deaf ears. The US Trade Representative made a speech talking about ‘can do’ countries and ‘won’t do’ countries, and how the ‘won’t do’ countries (from the developing world) ruined it for the rest. Possibly the greatest achievement of the documentary is showing the contrast between the struggling farmers and the Westerners – short clips are edited into the main narrative, these include interviews with naïve Starbucks workers, and coverage of the World Barista (or, coffee making) Championships. The film portrays brilliantly the suffering that one half of the world endures to make a few members of the other half of the world richer, as well as the way that we, as the general public, unknowingly (or just uncaringly) perpetuate the situation. For me, the title of a song by Canadian punk band Propaghandi (2001) sums up the actions of people in the West perfectly – Ordinary People Do Fucked-up Things When Fucked-Up Things Become Ordinary.
But where does the designer stand within this? It is advertising and marketing, in all of its various guises, that is the metaphorical wind in Capitalism’s sails. Design is what marketing and advertising are wrapped up in before being presented to the public. According to Rick Poyner (1999) in the article First Things First, A Brief History, “It is no exaggeration to say that designers are engaged in nothing less than the manufacture of contemporary reality.” The responsibility of the designer is a most crucial one.
It is the argument of many that religion is being replaced with consumerism – the public worship false gods, resulting in one section of society getting richer, whilst another part loses out. The ‘war on terror’ that is being waged in the name of ‘freedom’ (read ‘consumerism’) by America, with the support of the UK is not much different from the Crusades between the 11th and 17th Century which were fought in the name of Christianity. Although the War on Terror is justified with the word ‘freedom’, and the crusades were justified with the word ‘God’, there aims were both the personal benefit of the Western elite.
Similar comparisons can be made with Art. From around 300 AD until the 18th Century the main area of focus among artists and designers was the glorification of Christianity. However, today most of the ‘creative talent’ works towards promoting Capitalism (working in advertising, branding, etc.).
As Victor Papanek (1985) writes in Design for the Real World, “As socially and morally involved designers, we must address ourselves to the needs of a world with its back to the wall, while the hands on the clock point perpetually to one minute before twelve.”
Milton Glaser claims that “good design is good citizenship”, and Thomas Watson Jr. famously said, in 1950s America, that “good design is good business” (Heller and Vienne, 2003). My opinion is that good design is ‘responsible’ design. The term ‘responsible’ isn’t far removed from ‘citizenship’, however I feel the term ‘citizenship’ implies some kind of ‘loyalty’ to a country or a government, or even an idea, where as ‘responsibility’ is completely subjective (This said, Glaser’s ideas for what determined a ‘good designer’ were actually quite subjective, and based on questions, as opposed to solid answers). As designers we must decide for ourselves what we consider ‘responsible design’, and where our priorities lie as individual designers.
Glaser (2001, quoted in Heller and Vienne, 2003) made a questionnaire to determine how willing he was, as a designer, to lie. He called this ‘The Road to Hell’. It goes beyond colour, composition, type, etc., to question the ‘bigger picture.’ Here are 6 of the steps/questions:
• Designing a package to look bigger on the shelf.
• Designing a jacket for a book whose sexual content you find personally repellent.
• Designing an advertising campaign for a company with a history of known discrimination in minority hiring.
• Designing a line of t-shirts for a manufacturer that employs child labour.
• Designing a promotion for a diet product that you know doesn’t work
• Designing a brochure for an SUV that turned over frequently in emergency conditions and was known to have killed 150 people.
Fig. 1 shows stills from the recent Persil Small and Mighty advertising campaign. It shows a pop-up book describing how good for the environment it is to buy concentrated washing up liquid. Below is the copy, as narrated by the ‘cute’ sounding Welsh boy.
Because Persil Small and Mighty is concentrated it only takes half the water to make it, half the packaging to put it in, and half the lorries to deliver it. Every child has the right to a nicer world.
I think that this is a good advert in the sense that it is well made, memorable and gets the idea across, as well as creating a ‘caring’ personality for the product. However, let us forget about these qualities and attempt to analyse the ethics of this advertising campaign.
The facts are undeniable – it does have some environmental benefits to use a concentrated washing up liquid. But how much difference does it actual make? Persil claim that during the manufacturing of Small and Mighty 4.1 million litres less water (than the un-concentrated version) was used in 2007, as well as 4900 less trees. If, as they claim, the environmental impact is halved then this means that they still used 4.1 million litres of water and cut down 4900 trees to make Persil Small and Mighty in 2007. Small and Mighty is just one of Persil’s ranges that contains 3 different products – Small and Mighty Non-Biological, Small and Mighty Biological and Small and Mighty Colour. Persil also make seventeen other products, if we assume that each product uses roughly the same amount of water and trees to make (some will obviously use more, and some less) that means that in the year 2007 Persil used around 73.8 million litres of water and 88, 200 trees. This doesn’t include advertising and promotion (it would be interesting to find out how ‘green’ the advertising campaign for Small and Mighty was, Persil wouldn’t have had to have a new advertising campaign if they didn’t release a new range)
Persil are owned by Unilever - a company with 39 subsidiaries in the UK. These include brands like Cif, PG Tips, Pot Noodle, Marmite, Solero, Dove and Lynx. The later two brands, Dove and Lynx, promote two opposing values – Dove says that women should ‘Love the skin you’re in’, and be happy with not being skinny. Lynx however promotes women as objects.
Unilever have been target for animal rights protesters and are on numerous boycott lists, as well as having strong ties to cheap Third World labour. Unilever were prosecuted for polluting the Mersey in 1991, they have been fined for illegal dumping in China and have been accused by Greenpeace (2001) of dumping ‘several tonnes of highly toxic mercury waste’ in India.
If approached by Persil, and asked to promote them as a ‘green’ company, a designer would do one of three things:
• The majority would take the job and see it a good chance to make some money and improve their professional reputation.
• Some would have a problem working for a company like Unilever and wouldn’t take the offer.
• Others may also have a problem with Unilever, but take the job anyway.
As a designer/advertiser you may believe the Small and Mighty advertising campaign to be completely unethical. How can a company so massive, with such a huge ‘carbon foot print’ that exploits millions of people and animals possibly be promoted as environmentally friendly? The environmental benefits are minimal, and if they really cared about the environment then they wouldn’t have a started a company that makes chemicals. You consider it ‘responsible’ to refuse the work, as you will be helping make an immoral company more money. Instead you could work for more socially aware competitor.
However, you might take a slightly different view. There is no denying that big multi-nationals are here to stay, and ignoring them won’t make them go away. It may be considered more ‘responsible’ to work with big companies to improve things. While it is hardly honest picking out one small environmental improvement, and focusing on that, whilst ignoring the fact that the company still has a massive impact on the environment, it may be a step in the right direction. Awareness is growing amongst the general public about environmental issues and, while companies may only do it to shift more stock, it still keeps these issues at the front of peoples minds. While, at present, companies only have to make minor changes to fool people into thinking that they are ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ (or even no changes at all – HSBC now claim to be ‘green’ because you can choose whether or not you want to print a receipt at an ATM – something that you have always been able to do from any bank’s ATM), it is the nature of Capitalism that companies will try to out do each other. Meaning that companies will increasingly try to out do each other on the ‘ethical’ front, until the consumer will come to expect a company to be socially responsible.
So, what is it better to do? Try and improve things from with in big companies or refuse to work for them, and instead support smaller companies that could be potential competitors? Is it more important to focus on the outcome or the motivation of a company’s decision? Should you only work for a company that’s decisions are socially motivated, or does it not matter what the reason for the decisions are, along as the result is positive, i.e. a food company stops using eggs from battery-farmed hens and starts using free-range eggs as it will improve the company’s reputation and increase sales? Does it matter that a positive outcome came about for financial reasons? Or is it the role of the responsible designer to focus on “pursuits more worthy of our problem solving skills,” as “unprecedented environmental, social, and cultural crisis demand our attention,” as stated in First Things First Manifesto 2000 (AIGA Journal of |Graphic Design Vol.17, no. 2, 1999)? Does being responsible mean trying to do ‘good’ things, instead of just trying to de less ‘bad’ things?
As Victor Papanek (1985) says in Design for the Real World, “In an environment that is screwed up visually, physically, and chemically, the best and simplest thing that architects, industrial designers, planners, etc., could do for humanity would be to stop working entirely.” While this is true, it is not the only solution. If designers took a more active role in design, and realised just how powerful a tool it is, then things could start to change for the better. It is impossible to draw up a set of rules as to what a responsible designer should be. The responsibility of the designer is to form his own rules based on logic, compassion and education.
Bibliography
Adbusters (1999) First Things First 2000. AIGA Journal of Graphic Design, Vol. 17, no. 2.
Corporate Watch (no date) Unilever [Internet. Available from World Wide Web:
EIA (2004) Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
Francis, M. and Francis, N. (2006) Black Gold. UK, Speak-It Films.
Greenpeace (2001) Greenpeace accuses Unilever of negligence over mercury poisoning of Indian tourist resort [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
Heller, S. & Vienne, V. ed. (2003) Citizen Designer. USA, Allworth Press.
Mattick, P. (1972) One Dimensional Man in Class Society [internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
Papanek, V. (1985) Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. UK, Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Poyner, R. (1999) First Things First, A Brief History. Adbusters, no. 27 Fall.
Propagandhi (2001) Today’s Empires, Tomorrow’s Ashes. USA, G7 Welcoming Committee Records.
Seifert, J. (2004) The Philosophical Diseases of Medicine and Their Cure [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
< http://books.google.co.uk> [Accessed 9th April 2008]
Wikipedia (2008) Crusades [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
Wikipedia (2008) Distribution of Wealth [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
Wikipedia (2008) Immanuel Kant [internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant> [Accessed 2nd March 2008]
Wikipedia (2007) One-Dimensional Man [internet]. Available from World Wide Web: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man> [Accessed 28th November 2007]
Wikipedia (2008) Trade [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
Wikipedia (2008) Western Art History [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
Wikiquote (2008) Immanuel Kant [Internet]. Available from the World Wide Web: < http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant> [Accessed 9th April 2008]
Whitely, N. (1994) Design for Society. UK, Reaktion Books.
World Bank, The (2008) Understanding poverty [Internet]. Available from World Wide Web:
No comments:
Post a Comment