How do you “survive?”
Posted by: Fats in: KatawanI took the issue of “Freetrade” in exploring this question because it is a rather complex problem, far more complex than simplistic answers such as “sacrifice”, “perseverance”, “choice”, “hardship”, “savings”, “management”, “professionalism”, “experience”, “talent”, “education”, “responsibility” - mostly about the desire and proficiency to build an arts career after having made the choice to creative practice (with all its assumed perils - and rewards).
There are numerous issues overlooked by either simplistic or poetic advices on taking that “leap of faith”, and one of the biggest issues is that of the meaning and context of “to survive.”
“To survive” simply means “to continue living” or “to remain alive or in existence after -” - in other words, it means to keep alive above specific conditions. Thus, if we look at this definition within the context of global “freetrade”, a number of more specific issues become visible:
First, is the living and working standards of the artist-intellectual as it is affected by global trade and industry regulations (and the socio-cultural implications). When Indonesia decides to demolish labor unions in factories in order to increase profits, the workers in India are negatively affected by the flux of business in Indonesia. So, should India demolish their labor unions as well in order “to survive”?
Second, is the possibility of defining one’s own balance of life, perhaps outside of the existing spheres of global forces.
We might be ale to explore these issues through a close look at the environment that is one of the most significant factors (along with labor and human rights) in the problem of “freetrade.” Here, concern for the environment entails a more social understanding of ecology.
“And so, if we want young farmers to go on with farming, it’s not the economic problem that is primary for us. The main issue is with the social movement here. People begin farming because they want to live in that area. It’s the social issue which is the most important to them, instead of knowing if they have enough income to live. It is interesting to see the dynamics in the rural area.” - José Bové, leader and founder of La Confederation Paysanne (Peasants Confederation in France) at a workshop at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. April 2005.
My understanding of Bové’s “social movement” is formed by his articulations of essential concepts not simply related to economics: food sovereignty, the farmer’s right to use their own seeds, the landless people (or the sakadas or seasonal farmers such as in the Philippines), and protection from “dumping” from other countries. His examples pertain to - as in Diwa - life and life force.
However, the only machinery of international scale capable of rendering any form of “justice” to anyone deemed worthy in this global conflagration is the WTO. Bové asks: “How is it possible that only the economic institutions have their own justice and bring sentences against countries, but at the same time, the United Nations is unable to enforce sanctions when there are problems with human rights, environmental problems, labor problems, and so on.”
So, unless deep institutional changes takes place, it will not be possible to negotiate a truly fair and just agreement if institutions operate on the basis of interest rather than ideological commitment. In other words, the problem might be addressed not merely by a social and economic divide (of interest and ideology) but rather perhaps a deeper re-definition of the economic system as an ecological force in itself.
(It is 3 o’clock in the morning and I could hear someone singing and playing the guitar, a song about the land. I guess it is time for coffee and will continue this later in the day).
