The first one to do anything loses…

Can you guess the context for the title?…………………Bureaucracy!

I recently found a quotation that summarizes the relationship between people and bureaucracy beautifully:

“Some third person decides your fate: this is the whole essence of bureaucracy.” ―  Alexandra Kollontai, La Oposición Obrera

Just by way of contextualizing Kollontai’s comments, she was a Marxist feminist who worked for and won significant advances in women’s rights in the newly formed Soviet Union.  Oh no, now I’ve gone and done it — I’ve identified the work of not just a woman but a Marxist feminist as a way to critique bureaucracy. That’s practically an abomination in the United States, but let’s get beyond the dogma for a few moments to realize that most of us have been hosed by some kind of bureaucrat. When most people think of bureaucracy, they think of the public sector and we know it’s easy to demonize the annoyances we have with government bureaucracies.  In fact, both the typical critiques and defenses of bureaucracy are always framed in terms of this false separation of the public and private sector.  Yet, these very boring and traditionally politicized debates about whether government is good or bad (yawn) really miss the underlying nature of bureaucracy — it is an organizational tool meant to separate work and accountability.

Bureaucracies can exist in any type of organization from public to private to nonprofit/ nongovernmental.

For example, several years ago I was trying to do research with an indigenous rights group and the structures of their organization were used to direct me from person-to-person and phone call-to-phone call. What I found out later was that because I was white, they were very nervous about letting me do any interviews with the members of the movement, but they were hesitant to actually say that. Now, in a historical context I can understand that, but it’s still a racist conclusion not based on the evaluation of me or my project. Yet, the organizational structure that was used in order to communicate the non-decision decision — bureaucracy. Ok… so nonprofit bureaucracy… CHECK.

Private organizations might have some of the most infuriating bureaucracies ever. We had Verizon Fios at an apartment and loved the fiber optic cable and internet — it was great. Then we moved to a house where we couldn’t get the Fios because it wasn’t available. We set up the new account, shifted our contract to a different provider but still using the Verizon packaging because we had the two-year contract. No problem, right? Yeah, until they charged us for early termination plus messed up a few other things. Here’s where the true bureaucratic craziness comes in — I spent 5 hours on a Saturday being passed from person-to-person, each claiming that it wasn’t their department, so by the time that I had spoken with several departments two and three times, each trying to scapegoat someone else, I lost my mind, used my sailor language, spoke to a manager and we finally got things straightened out — or so I thought. Three months later, while I was out of the country the television service was cut off and because it was in my name, I had to deal with it — my husband could not. After about an hour of sorting things out on the phone at international cell phone rates (yes, from Verizon as well), I just paid the whole bill only to be issued a full refund within 3 weeks.  Ok…so private sector bureacracy… CHECK

And, then there’s the obvious governmental bureaucracy (and no, this time, I’m not going to use an American example… there are too many fun ones here, but I’ll vary). The citizens of the UK, pissed off with the economy, Gordon Brown (and his unfortunate microphone gaffe), and the Labour party splits their votes between the Tories, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats (who as far as I can make out are the party that promises the world but seldom has the power to deliver).  Absent a clear majority, a coalition had to be formed and the Liberal Democrats decide to back a Tory government. And without a clear citizen mandate, they do as most conservatives do — move forward with the fervent conviction in their ideology behaving as though they have a mandate from the people.  So, now in the UK the bureaucracy’s response to a factory worker whose hand had been severed in an accident trying to get public assistance? You still have one hand, you can work in your career field. Then there’s immigration — an even bigger clusterfuck. Again,  absent a strong mandate, they rush 1,001 (no, not literally) rule changes about immigration through to be implemented in mid-July screwing up the system so long that the first of September a lot of those new rules had to be changed in order to even get international students into the country. For the rest of us awaiting news, it pushes our applications back months only to find that the rule changes have taken what was described in June as an easily supported application for settlement to a rejection but because they took so long, it screws up other avenues for visas in the short-term. Ok, so public sector bureaucracy… CHECK

So, let’s come back to the Marxist feminist’s critique of bureaucracies — third persons making choices for others (and often screwing up our lives). Now, when well used, these kinds of rule systems can be helpful. For example, even within Kollontai’s work, she wasn’t advocating doing away with the government bureaucracies that discriminated against women — her argument was that the bureaucracy must make better decisions for the people it governed.

In fact, that is a fair response to all bureaucracies — their existence isn’t the problem, their use to scapegoat owning uncomfortable decisions, to fleece consumers out of money, or to mess with peoples’ life plans (among so many other effects) are the problem. Too often, we see people in positions of authority in bureaucracy who have lost their humanity,  their minds, or just a basic grasp on reality that rules are necessary to keep things in society and life ordered but people cannot and should not use rules (or rule changes) to fail to do their job CORRECTLY.

It was not appropriate to use a bureaucracy to justify a racist argument against granting me research access just because it was more convenient compared to telling me that because I was white I wasn’t being granted access (later confirmed in a face-to-face). It isn’t appropriate to use an organization’s structure to hurt their consumers service or financially. And it’s certainly not appropriate to screw up existing (and probably already bureaucratically challenged) policies with even less clear and less sensible policies.

Like with most other Marxist critiques of capitalism and bourgeois problems, the critique is spot on. The challenge comes in what people can do about it, which is often the failing of Marxist critique — identifies the problems but doesn’t pose nearly as many solutions. With regard to nonprofits and private companies our recourse is often a bit limited because we can only indirectly affect them — unless enough people are pissed off like we saw with the mass campaign against Glenn Beck on Fox directed at threatening his advertisers with the loss of business.  Absent that, we can at least most affect government bureaucracies through the elections process.

Yet, that doesn’t even address the more fundamental challenge of bureaucracies — even when change is brought about, later bureaucracies can come in and fuck it all up (e.g., Stalin’s removal of many of the protections gained for women initially after the revolution in the USSR or Congressional removal of the protections of the Glass-Steagall  act protecting the economy from the financial industry–thanks to the GOP Congress and lack of advocacy from the Clinton administration).  Bureaucracy is necessary but it must be managed. It cannot be left to the lazy, unmotivated, and self-serving people that often self-select into these types of positions — protected from owning responsibility.

In the end — we should all become hyperactors — choosing to construct a new reality of bureaucracy.

If you build it, they will come! 🙂

Vampires and Religion



I have a very simple thesis — if you’re a social liberal you should love True Blood (ok, unless you just don’t like fantasy/ vampire kinds of things) and if you’re a social conservative and love the show, then you’re not the brightest star in the sky. Now, this isn’t just my effort to justify my obsession with the Eric Northman character and the series (though, that’s why this post is under guilty pleasures 🙂 ), but after watching the entire 5 series show within a few weeks some really clear themes emerge in the series that should warm even the most non-vampire loving hearts.

This post, to keep it manageable is just going to play with the very evident argument emerging from the show that organized religion and dogma are destructive. There are four primary ways that the show seems to communicate the theme:

  • The process of religious indoctrination. Not only does the series use the hapless Jason Stackhouse to identify the population of people susceptible to religious extremism, but it shows the process by which people become indoctrinated into any dogma.
  • Showing a mirror of contemporary arguments from the “Christian” right in America. The ‘news’ dialogue throughout the series between the ‘vampire rights’ association and the Christian leaders would seem far-fetched if the types of arguments being used by the Christian leaders didn’t mirror the types of arguments that we’ve been hearing in the last several years in response to issues like gay rights, like the mandate on birth control pills, and more broadly like the ‘threats’ to American identity that socially progressive policies represent.
  • Demonstrating the difficulty in reaching out to extremists.  It seems like this is Godric’s role in the show (aside from being Eric’s Jiminy Cricket). He tried to reach out to the Fellowship of the Sun to build a bridge between the haters and the ‘mainstreaming vampires’. Not only did he fail, but seemed to exhausted by the process of trying to reach out that he met his ‘true death’.
  • Unwavering commitment to religious dogma breeds violence.  Finally, in season 5, religious dogma and an unfaltering commitment to faith are not only questioned but violence emerging from ‘true believers’ is a thinly veiled reflection of the thousands of years of violence committed in the name of religion from all three of the major western organized religions. In fact, it’s the ‘athiest’ and dubious character of Eric Northman who must be the voice of reason, arguing that the ‘god’ the vampires are worshiping is a god of violence complete with group think and the personal risks of anyone who dares speak against the norm.

Now, I’m obviously not the first person to notice the inherently anti-religious tones in the show (e.g., the Huffington Post from earlier in 2012 describes religious themes in season 5), but it’s nice to see an American series deconstructing religion and the risks of religious extremism. While I’m no lover of religion (in general), I respect those who practice their religions in ways that seem ideologically consistent with the religious texts; unfortunately, many of the ‘religious’ people that I see in the media (from sports to politics to the news) as well as in my daily life — you know the ones who are very out of the closet about their faith — seem to bastardize their own faith by contaminating it with hate, anger, and judgment. What I don’t see nearly as much are the people of faith that I know are out there standing up to the bullies and decrying them for giving Christians/ Muslims/ Jews a bad name. They’re the ones that the rest of us need to hear from the most. They’re the ones who can build a much more meaningful bridge with the rest of us to move forward beyond  the last crazy decade.

As a non-Christian American for most of my adult life it has felt like I had to be in the closet about my lack of religion. What’s worse is that in the last decade, religious zealotry seems to have exploded in the US so that it’s even more socially acceptable to pressure people into demonstrating their faith… like we have a litmus test to not only prove that we’re morally worthy but also that we’re patriotic. In 2008, we actually had a presidential candidate (Huckabee) who said in a primary debate that it was time to put ‘God back in the constitution’. Last year during the GOP primaries I watched as a gay soldier — a man who’d served his country with honor asked about the candidates’ positions on gays in the military– was boo’ed by the audience. Now, the groupthink present among the social conservatives was bad enough, but not a single one of the candidates wanting to be THE president had the courage of his convictions to defend that soldier. I don’t think I’ve ever been more embarrassed to be an American (and in the last 10 years, I’ve had plenty of reasons). 

So, in coming back to True Blood — it’s refreshing to see not so thinly veiled arguments against religion and dogma because it gives me hope that there are enough people in the US who do think, who see the danger in dogmatic belief that the US could find its way out of the anti-intellectual hell that we’ve been living in.

Guilty pleasure?Duh — they know their demographic (i.e., one who likes hot men). At least it’s  a guilty pleasure that problematizes assumptions.