[Air-L] "Pathways to Meaning" with Kendall and Markham

[Charles Ess]

Hi all,

While the reminders offered by Sanaz and MC of the importance of remaining
critical of our own institutions are useful and in place -
first of all, it would be a mistake to think that there are no internal
critics at AU: on the contrary, I know from first-hand experience that
innumerable colleagues have put up the good fight at AU over these issues,
and continue to do so.  Those colleagues need our collective encouragement -
not the implication that because they work at AU, they are somehow
morally compromised.
  
These reminders also raise a larger question - namely, of how far each of us
must compromise with institutions, from universities to global capitalism,
that we know are less than morally pure (to say the least).  As a simple
example: everyone on the Air list owns and depends upon technologies that in
some degree or another depend in turn upon child labor, if not slave labor.

The point of this observation is _not_ something along the lines of the
common logical fallacies of "two wrongs make a right" or "common practice"
(if everyone else is doing it, it must be o.k.).

It is rather to invoke Gandhi's critique of the institutions we all live in:
"...to be non-violent, we must not wish for anything on this earth which the
meanest and lowest of human beings cannot have."
Somewhat less radically, but in the same direction, Kant also noted that
"nothing straight was ever made from the crooked timber of humanity."

Given that very few  of us could (or would) lead a perfectly self-sufficient
life in some isolated island somewhere - our moral challenge is then to
figure out how to live by our best ethical lights with institutions (and
people) who are less than morally perfect.
Stated differently: given that none of us is a Gandhi - i.e., willing or
able to live in such a supremely moral way - we are then left with making
judgments as to, in effect, how much evil we will compromise with.

As I have come to wrestle with these questions, I find that part of the
judgment must be made in light of the question: is goodness in the world
(and myself) better served by my boycotting whatever is morally impure -
and/or by participating in institutions in which such participation may lead
to their correction and improvement?
Manifestly, if the good stay away from all corrupt institutions - they will
find themselves in very limited places and space of power and influence
indeed; and whatever capacity they may have for correcting and improving
corruption will be lost as well.  In my view, such a strategy seems likely
to only make everything - and most everyone - worse, not better.

Let me close, then, with deep gratitude and ongoing encouragement to my many
good colleagues at AU who have kept up the good fight of internal criticism
while they also continue with invaluable research and inspiring teaching.
If anything, we can learn from and be inspired from their example, if we are
fortunate enough to get to know it more closely, as the rest of us must also
be active critics at points in our own institutions, as well as citizens of
larger societies.

Best,
- charles ess
-- 
Professor in Media Studies
Department of Media and Communication

Director, Centre for Research on Media Innovations
<http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/research/center/media-innovations/>

University of Oslo 
P.O. Box 1093 Blindern
NO-0317 
Oslo Norway
email: charles.ess at media.uio.no