"Those
who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible
government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are
governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested
largely by men we have never heard of… In almost every act of our lives
whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or
our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number
of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of
the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind." -Edward Bernays
Anyone whose mission it is to ‘control the masses’ knows it all begins with good marketing.
Public relations aficionado Edward Bernays understood that.
One
of the country’s original PR flacks, Bernays is perhaps best known for
forging the decades-long marketing alliance between the AMA and the
tobacco industry. The ‘Father of Spin,’ as he is known, also played a
major role in the marketing and selling of the First World War to the
American public with his now infamous slogan, "Making the World Safe
for Democracy." Having mastered the art of seduction, Bernays
understood that luring the public into purchasing products they didn't
need was a simple matter of connecting those products to their
unconscious desires and (perceived) unmet needs. He called this
scientific technique of opinion molding the “engineering of consent.”
Corporations
have come a long way since Bernays first began coaching them in the
stealthy art of consumer seduction. And we have been forever changed by
their success. From credit cards to satellite television to fossil
fuels, American consumers, having succumbed to corporate seduction, are
today paying a very high price for their acquiescence.
Coal-fired Facebook Fires Up Activists – sort of
The series of events following Facebook’s recent announcement that their ‘energy efficient’ data center in Prineville
Oregon would be powered by the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth (coal) is illustrative of the problem.
When
Facebook announced the opening of its new data center, its PR people
made a point of emphasizing that the facility would be “among the
greenest in the industry.” So, it was little wonder that clean energy
activists were up in arms when it was revealed that the social
networking site had contracted with mega-utility PacifiCorp for its
power - since PacifiCorp’s primary power-generation fuel is coal.
What
followed was a flurry of Facebook activity, mostly in the form of
negative comments on the site itself, but also including at least two
petitions - one initiated by Change.org and another by Greenpeace –
demanding that FB’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg either clean up or abandon the
company’s contract with PacifiCorp. At least so far, the contract is
unaltered, although it remains to be seen whether Facebook will succumb
to the pressure being applied by its more energy-conscious users.
The
proverbial ‘rub,’ of course, lies in just how much pressure FB users
will be willing to apply. It may be that the Internet, as Chris Hedges
recently asserted, “has become one more tool hijacked by corporate
interests to accelerate our cultural, political and economic decline.”
Yet, the inevitability of such a prediction is far from certain. How
social networking tools like Facebook ultimately impact our collective
future and whether or not they actually live up to their promise to
“promote democracy and unleash innovation and creativity” may well be
up to those who use them.
Having
become the most popular social networking site in the world (and the
one most utilized by activists of all stripes), Facebook is clearly
holding most of the cards. And this is where Bernays’ theory of
‘perceived need’ kicks in big time. After all, FB users need to
communicate with one another. We have products to sell, thoughts to
express, ideas to flesh out and events to publicize. And, let’s face
it, social networking is the most effective and efficient means toward
those ends. Given this (perceived) need, the threat of a boycott –
likely the only truly effective tool activists have to make their point
- seems all but out of the question. The irony of consumers feeling
empowered by the same technology that captivates them is difficult to
miss.
One
liberal-leaning blogger expressed the dilemma succinctly: “Do I want
more ads and more privacy issues to deal with so Facebook can afford to
buy more expensive but cleaner power? Definitely not. Would I use a
greener Facebook competitor if it existed? Yes, but not if I had to
sacrifice functionality.”
We consumers are not very good at sacrifice.
The Enemy is Here – and We’re Addicted to Their Products
In
the same way consumers have become captive to the social networking
industry, we have likewise become captive to the telecommunications,
satellite television, pharmaceutical, fossil fuel, fast food and credit
card industries (to name a few). We may not like the ways in which
these corporate behemoths treat us, but we’re too addicted to their
products to do much about it. Those addictions to everything corporate
may offer the only cogent explanation of why we remain paralyzed in the
face of apparently unlimited corporate power.
How
much progressives will be willing to sacrifice in order to create the
world we (say we) want is not yet clear. But one thing is certain: As
long as we remain unwilling to stretch the boundaries of our comfort
zones in the interest of the greater good, we will remain relatively
powerless. We will, in the most perverse sense of the term, “get what
we pay for.”
We are here now – at this point in history. The battle lines between ‘We the People’ and the
Corporate
State
have never been more clearly drawn. At this moment, progressives still
have the opportunity to determine the outcome of that battle. But it is
only a moment, and we will never get it back. No less than the future
of our culture and our species will depend upon what we choose to do
next. If we let the moment pass, that non-decision will become our
collective destiny.
It
seems entirely possible that American consumers are already so damaged
by our cultural addictions that we lack the ability to give them up. It
is also possible that, like all addicts, Americans will continue
consuming their preferred ‘poison’ until the supply is gone or until
something equally untenable occurs. Yet, all addicts hit bottom sooner
or later – however far down that might be.
We’d better hope that happens sooner than later.
Sandy Leon Vest is the editor and publisher of SolarTimes, an independent quarterly energy newspaper with a progressive point of view. SolarTimes is available online at www.solartimes.org,
and distributed in hardcopy throughout the Bay Area and beyond. Sandy
LeonVest’s work has been published locally, as well as internationally,
and includes 15 years in the news department at KPFA Radio in Berkeley,
CA.
Toward Freedom