This is a handout for students in my MBA class on OT. The purpose is to give you an introduction to three approaches to CT analysis. The first is Immanent Criticism by Horkheimer. Like deconstruction the critique looks at how the text does not live up to its claims. Second is Ordorno's Negative Dialectics, where there is also a comparison between espoused and actualized practices, and some minor hope that transformation is possible. Third is Marcuse's Historical Materialism which is the most optimistic in terms of allowing that an institution can progress and mature into its claims. Nike Inc. examples are worked through briefly for each approach. For references see "How Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy can Unmask Nike's Labor Practices."

Immanent Criticism. Horkheimer's immanent criticism method allows us to contrast Nike' conceptual principles with the existent condition of its labor practices. Of the three methods we will look at, it is the most negative and least emancipatory. The method proceeds by changing Nike concepts and principles into the occurrence of their opposites. In this way we explore how Nike's espoused claims are contradicted by their own practices. One place to begin this analysis is to contrast Nike's Code of Conduct principles with its actuality. "Nike seeks partners that share our commitment to the promotion of best practices and continuous improvement in" (Nike's revised code as of May 12, 1998). The core principles are:

1. Occupational health and safety, compensation, hours of work and benefits.
2. Minimizing our impact on the environment.
3. Management practices that recognize the dignity of the individual, the rights of free association and collective bargaining, and the right to a workplace free of harassment, abuse or corporal punishment.
4. The principle that decisions on hiring, salary, benefits, advancement, termination or retirement are based solely on the ability of an individual to do the job.

Documentation and Inspection (Contractor) agrees to maintain on file such documentation as may be needed to demonstrate compliance with this Code of Conduct, and further agrees to make these documents available for Nike or its designated auditor's inspection upon request.

There is abundant documented evidence on the web and in some news accounts that Nike is not complying with its Code of Conduct (Campaign for Labor Rights, 1998). Ernst & Young has been auditing the correspondence between Nike's principles and its actual labor practices since 1994 (Nike web documents). In 1998, one of Nike's employees went public with the discrepancies by releasing an Ernst & Young internal audit (1997) of a recently constructed Vietnam sneaker factory. The Ernst & Young audit contradicted Nike's public declarations to the stockholders and the media over the past five years (Knight, 1997).

All four Code of Conduct principles are negated by Nike's own audit which observes seemingly undeniable violations of wage laws, overtime hours, safety, poor ventilation, exposure to toxic glues and solvents and violations of Vietnam environmental, health, and wage laws.

In violation of principle one, Ernst & Young found that toluene, a carcinogen, was in the air at different sites in the factory studied, six to 177 times the amount allowed by Vietnamese regulations, which itself is about four times as strict as American toluene standards. Extended exposure to the carcinogen toluene is known to cause damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system, and can lead to birth defects.

Contrary to principle two, there is evidence that Nike's subcontractor is releasing pollutants into the atmosphere in violation of Vietnamese laws. According to the report:

Firing non-reusable garbage in combustors caused exhaustion of black smoke into the air. The company should consider that matter and accelerate measures and application to reduce black smoke.

Corporate Watch and Sweatshop Watch photos provided by O'Rourke are available on the web (See Sweatshop Watch) showing a worker burning scrap rubber in a boiler which emits pollution, violating environmental laws in Vietnam.

In negation of Nike's claims that its Code of Conduct is being "independently monitored by Ernst & Young," Ernst & Young (1997) was also, for the first time, revealed to be "sub-contracted" by Nike and not acting as an "independent auditor or monitor" of Nike operations, as publicly claimed by Nike. This is contrary to how Philip Knight (1997) described the relationship to Ernst & Young in his 1997 speech to the stockholders.

In 1992, NIKE became the first company in our industry to have a Code of Conduct--in 1994, we became the first company, I believe in any industry, to have that Code of Conduct monitored by an independent third party. The party that we picked was a certified public accountant, Ernst & Young (Knight, September 22, 1997, emphasis mine).

 As a sub-contractor, Nike dictates what is looked at, how it is measured, and controls the dissemination of the results of any legal violations. In its web documents (Nike FAQ, 1997) Nike explains in some detail how its "independent monitoring system" works and re-asserts that Ernst & Young is an "independent monitor."

Independent auditors like Ernst and Young are trusted to judge company performance for shareholders, securities brokers and financial regulators in governments all over the world. Their most important asset is a reputation for independent and accurate assessment of corporate performance, which is precisely what NIKE demands and receives in every audit done. The auditing teams are comprised of local, host-country nationals who speak and live in the culture of the worker (1997 NikeWorkers web site).

In negation of principle three, Ernst & Young (1997) reported that employees do not read Nike's Code of Conduct and do not know exactly what "Nike" is. Another startling revelation, contradicting principles one and three, is that 77 percent of the workers in this Bien Hoa City (Industrial Zone II near Ho Chi Minh City), South Vietnam shoe factory, suffered from respiratory problems because the Nike workplace is insufficiently ventilated and filled with carcinogens (Ernst & Young, 1997; Keown, 1997; O'Rourke, 1997; Greenhouse, 1997). This includes the use of toxic and illegal (both in the U.S. and Vietnam) chemicals such as Benzene, a glue that has been linked to leukemia. A month earlier, on October 3^rd, 1997, AMRC/KHCIC (1997) released a report that in two Nike factories (Yue Yuen and Wellco) in China, the toxic glue banned in the U.S. was being used by Nike employees who had no clue to its health hazards.

In contrast to principle three, the conditions depicted in the Ernst and Young (1997) report conform to the official definition of a "sweatshop." The U.S. General Accounting Office has developed a working definition of a sweatshop as "an employer that violates more than one federal or state labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers' compensation, or industry registration" (Corporate Watch, 1998).

In contrast to principle four, the following direct quotes from the Ernst & Young (1998) report reveal several glaring discrepancies between principle and practice (VT is the code name of the factory):

 Pay and Overtime.

• There were 50 employees without any indication of salary payment.
• There were 20 cases of eligible employees who worked for Company more than a year but were not paid severance when they left the Company.
• VT's night shift working hours is currently 8 hours (7 working hours and 1 rest hour). VT's salary payment for night shift workers is calculated as follows: working hours x 135% of the day time payment) + (1 hour rest time x 100% of the day time payment). As stipulated by laws in Vietnam, the 1 hour rest time should be multiplied by 135% of the day time payment, because the resting hour should be considered as working hours according to Article 71 (breaktime) of the Labor Code.

• Out general review of the personnel register as of October 1996 indicated that there are 104 persons under 18 which contradicts VT's policy.

The concepts that dominate the public image of Nike are enacted as their opposites. Workers in Nike factories experience social injustice in an impoverished and toxic life world. In this way the immanent critique reveals Nike's own inherent negativity. Nike contradicts its own principles and claims about itself. Horkheimer used immanent critique to show how "bourgeois society moves from keeping its revolutionary promise of 'justice, equality and freedom'" (Held, 1980). The Nike ideology being preached by Phil Knight, posted on Nike web sites, and being advertised to investors, suppliers, consumers, and overseas emplyees conceals a reality that enslaves Asian women and children and entraps them in misery and suffering. Nike markets a view of itself that is contradicted by its own standards and principles.

Immanent criticism does more than establish the negation of Nike's espoused theory. Horkheimer's method also allows us to assess the closed-off possibilities. Although, as we shall see below, positive possibilities are more the focus of Ordorno's and especially Marcuse's methods. In the face of the Ernst & Young and other reports, Nike maintains its claim that its code of conduct has been monitored and implemented since its inception in 1992. By insisting it is living up to its code of conduct, Nike closes off any possibility for improvement. For example, Nike maintains that it pays the minimum wage in each country or the industry standard (whichever is higher). But, a minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage. Countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and China have lowered the minimum wage to less than poverty level in order to attract multinational corporate investment. Phil Knight said in his May 12, 1998 address, "we are rooted in our claim to be good corporate citizens" (See Nike web site Nikebiz). A good corporate citizen could work to close the gap between theory and practice, instead of maintaining the illusion that its behavior is congruent.

Negative Dialectics. In what follows, I want to explore how Adorno's method of negative dialectics gives insight into the contradictions between Nike's espoused theory and practice. Like Horkheimer's approach to immanent criticism, this method examines the gap between what an object (e.g. Nike) claims for itself and its actual performance (Held, 1980: 211). But, Adorno also does more than Horkheimer. Adorno sought to break the grip of conceptual systems that reified objects by attending to their subjectivities (Held, 1980: 213). Identity thinking, rational identity, and non-identity thinking (negative dialectics) are keys to this analysis. Identity thinking would take the local story of the Vietnamese worker we are about to tell to you and dissolve it into the universal story of all Nike workers. In rational identity, we might naively assume that Nike is identical to its code of conduct and press release stories. But, as we saw in the previous analysis the guiding concepts of Nike are far from being actuated. If Nike possessed rational identity it would not fail to fulfil its own code of conduct. Negative dialectics or non-identity thinking allows us to see the falseness of claims in Nike's identity thinking and rational identity. "Negative dialectics assesses the relation between concept and object, between the set of properties implied by the concept and the object's actuality" (Held, 1980: 215). Nike's conceptualization of itself may change over time, perhaps becoming more enlightened in the face of its own contradictions and unrealized possibilities.

In keeping with Adorno's ways of writing up his inquiries using irony and juxtaposition, I offer a story of one Nike worker to further unmask Nike ideology. Here by ideology I mean, action and words that "conceal or mask social contradictions on behalf of a dominant class or group" (Held, 1980: 186). As discussed above, Nike's code of conduct is a mask concealing many contradictions between identity thinking, rational identity and non-identity. These do benefit Phil Knight's, capital accumulation. It also sustains the illusion that global capitalism is benefiting young Asian women in Nike factories.

The following story is constructed by me to de-romanticize Nike labor practices in juxtaposition to Nike's celebrated place in popular culture. My story attempts to give more voice to one Vietnamese worker's sense of the inner history of Nike than to it usual spokesperson, Phil Knight. As such, it is a reversal of the Nike narrative that one might find in OT, such as in the text by Hodge, Anthony and Gale (1996), reviewed above. This loccl story is also part of the wider political, social, and economic discourse of late multinational capitalism. As a subordinate group, the Nike worker through elaborate PR hoaxes is made invisible to OT and absent from the history of Nike, their workers silenced by Nike's rhetorical moves.

The Lap Nguyen Stories. In telling this story I will put Nike's side of the story in highlighted boxes, and focus the main text on Ms. Nguyen's telling of the story. What would you do if you were poor, young, female, and the only job open to you was to work for Nike? What would you do if you were directed to talk to the media? Talking to the media can get you fired in repressive havens like Vietnam. On April 30th, 1998, a female Nike factory worker, Lap Nguyen, who cooperated in interviews with ESPN in February 1998 and CBS News inquiries in July 1996, was finally forced to resign.

The story begins November 10, 1996 when Ms. Nguyen went to work for Sam Yang as an assembly line worker making $36 a month. Sam Yang is a Korean-owned, Nike sub-contractor factory in Cu Chi, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. An industrious, even model employee, by February 1996 she was promoted to team leader at a salary of $52 a month, responsible for supervising 50 other women on the Nike assembly line.

The cost of labor for NIKE products varies slightly by model, volume and source. As a general rule, labor represents about 15% of the price NIKE pays the factory for the product. Because NIKE's cost is about 25% of retail cost, labor accounts for about 4% of the retail cost (Nike FAQ web site).

 "As a team leader," Ms Nguyen told a NY Times reporter after her forced resignation:

"I made sure that the assembly line of 50 workers is going along. I also helped other workers, watched the total count to ensure that we meet the daily quota. I helped train the new workers. I helped other workers out if they got stuck" (Herbert, 1998).

In March, 1996 Ms. Nguyen, was one of 15 team leaders lined up and each one slapped in the head with a Nike upper sole by their Korean manager, Ms. Jaeng Mi Baek. The incident followed an inspection by a Nike official who had reprimanded the manager for producing shoes with the wrong color patterns. The story became widely circulated in the Vietnam press. In July 1996, Ms. Roberta Baskin, a reporter for CBS News ' 48 Hours program, interviewed Ms. Nguyen. The 48 Hours story aired October 17^th, 1996 (CBS News 48 Hours, 1996).

Baskin: (Voiceover) Thuy and 14 other team leaders were singled out and punished by their Korean supervisor, Madame Baeck, seen here sitting at a table with the Nike shoe she used to hit the women. It was in retaliation for some poor sewing. Madame Baeck's reply? Quote, "It's not a big deal. It's just a method of managing workers."

 Did she hurt you?

Thuy: (Through Translator) The physical pain didn't last long, but the pain I feel in my heart will never disappear (excerpts from CBS 48 Hours segment, October 17, 1996).

As Ms. Nguyen recounted her side of the story after her forced resignation (Herbert, 1998):

I don't know how Roberta find out about me. One day I and my friends who were also hit by the manager was told by the confederation of labor to meet with a reporter outside the factory after work. After work, we went outside to the restaurant, in front of the factory, and talked to her.

In the French press McCall (1997) reported the slap on the wrist fine paid by Nike's subcontractor:

The company was prosecuted and the woman forced home after receiving a three-month suspended jail sentence. But the 200-dollar fine imposed on the firm would not be considered a major deterrent by many overseas concerns.

American-Vietnamese business man and labor activist, Thuyen Nguyen (author of the Vietnam Labor Watch Study) reported how Phil Knight tried to minimize the 15 women receiving corporal punishment story as a overblown incident involving only one of Nike's 400,000 workers (June 17, 1997):

By September last year, many Vietnamese newspapers had published articles about 15 women workers who were hit on the head by a Nike factory supervisor. But at a shareholders meeting at Nike's headquarters, its chairman Phil Knight minimized the story into an incident involving only one worker who was hit on the arm by a supervisor.

The classic issue here is the glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Does Nike by its presence foster higher levels of respect for rights -- at least in the factories? Or does our presence foster repression in countries where governments do not recognize some of the rights we in western democracies hold dear? Nike firmly believes -- and the record supports -- the concept that our presence helps (Nike FAQ web site)

Nike also uses endorsements to curtail further CBS coverage of corporal punishment incidents. On February 11, 1998 the 48 hours reporter, Roberta Baskin, whose 1996 report focused public attention on Nike corporal punishment practices, reports to another reporter that she has been preempted by her boss from doing follow up stories about Nike labor practices (Kurtz, 1998). She wonders if there is an endorsement relationship between Nike and CBS News, as it covers the Olympic games sporting the Swoosh logo. On February 20^th it is confirmed by Focus on the Corporation (email newsletter, 1998) that there is an endorsement contract between CBS News and Nike. This can be verified by watching CBS newscasters as they cover the 1998 Olympics required in exchange for endorsement fees to wear the Nike logos.

Ms. Lap Nugyen was once again interviewed in February, 1998. This time by a ESPN reporter, Mr. Ley. In April (Ley, 1998) ESPN aired its report on Nike labor practices, which reported two more incidents of corporal punishment during its visit to the Sam Yang, Nike Vietnam sneaker factory. An ESPN producer observed a supervisor slap a female employee sharply across the forearm for not spreading glue slowly enough, and another supervisor was observed throwing a sneaker angrily at an employee. After the ESPN program, "Outside the Line", went on the air during the Olympics.

 Before I left the factory to be interviewed by ESPN, the general manager told me to say nice things about the factory and that the factory is having problems and that's why workers are also facing problems. I told him that I will tell the truth as I know it. I told him I cannot speak for the entire factory. I will speak for myself about what I know (Herbert, 1998).

Ms Nguyen was grilled by her Sam Yang factory managers for speaking with ESPN (Herbert, 1998).

Q. Tell us more about your interview with ESPN.

A. My talk with ESPN mainly involved wages. The conversation revolved around wages and why we signed the contract. I told ESPN that there was a strike and we did not like the contract and that's why we went on the strike. I joined the strike with other workers because I did not want to sign the contract. But after the strike, the company forced the workers to accept the contract. I told ESPN about how the contract was not good for the workers because the Vietnamese currency keep losing its value and we were getting pay at an old rate that gives us less money. The factory keeps using an old exchange rate and did not adjust the rate to the latest rate causing many of us to lose money.

NIKE's Code of Conduct provides that NIKE will seek to do business with contractors that recognize the rights of workers to freely associate and bargain collectively -- which in its simplest form means that we believe workers should have the opportunity to form unions and negotiate with management on a collective basis (Nike FAQ web site).

Q. Was the factory manager happy with your interview?

A. I told the managers afterward about my interview at ESPN. They did not believe me. They did not believe that all I talk about was wages. They asked whether I told ESPN that workers are being abused. I said that I told ESPN that physical abuse do not happen any more. They keep asking me over and over again about the interview.

In addition to that, a lot of our critics say that our Code of Conduct has no teeth, it's just a piece of paper. But I think you saw in USA Today, that not only do we post our Code of Conduct on the wall of all the major rooms in the factories, in addition we are handing out plastic cards showing the Code of Conduct to all the workers in these factories in his or her native language. In addition to that, over these last few weeks, we have terminated four factories which have not lived up to NIKE's Code of Conduct--that's two apparel factories and one glove factory (Knight's speech to stockholder meeting, Sept. 22, 1997).

Q. What happened to you after the interview with ESPN?

A. I was interviewed by ESPN on the 22nd. On the 23rd, I was transferred to be a team leader of a different line. This line was made up of only 43 workers who were just starting, but we have to make the same quota as the other line of 50 workers. I was having a hard time keeping up and could not meet the quota. I worked so hard to keep up but I can't. There was only 43 workers and they were all beginners. The other line has 50 experienced workers.

Q. What else happened?

A. I became really sick, had high temperature. This is because I have been working 100+ hours of overtime in Feb and March. So I asked the manager to let me go home. I can not obtain a doctor note because it's after 10:00 AM. The manager said that you can not be a team leader and take sick day off. While I was working because I was sick so I keep my head down for 10 minutes. The manager screamed at me that team leader cannot keep their head down while working. The next day I got a doctor note. The doctor said I have 40 degree fever (104 degree F) and I took one day off. After coming back, they demoted me. The manager keep moving me from one job to the next. The manager followed me around and yelled at me. The manager recalled every mistake I had made in the last two years and yelled at me for every little thing. The manager then told me that my new job is to clean the bathroom, that I'm worthless, I'm not good enough to work for the company. And I'm only good for cleaning the bathroom.

Since this issue [toxic work conditions] has come to the headlines literally around the world, I haven't had a single Taiwanese or Korean shoemaker that I've talked to that's been with us for a long time that hasn't made the observation that if a shoe worker in Korea or Taiwan had gone to sleep in the shoe factory there ten years ago and wakened in a shoe factory in Indonesia or Vietnam today, wouldn't have thought that he or she had died and gone to heaven; the conditions have improved dramatically (Knight's speech to stockholder meeting, Sept. 22, 1997, additions mine).

Q. What else happened?

A. It is not my job to the clean the bathroom. I don't have to do that.

There are people who are hired to clean the bathroom. It is not my responsibility. I was not hired for that. In 1996, after I was hit I did not want to work there anymore. But the general manager asked me to stay on and so I stayed.

And I'll point this out: that on any given day in Southeast Asia, there are at least 500,000 people working on NIKE shoes and clothes. That's a community that's only slightly smaller than the city of Portland. And you do not see [Portland Mayor] Vera Katz being charged with abusing the citizenry whenever there is a crime or an exception to the laws in this community, and I would suggest that you hold us to the same standards (Knight's speech to stockholder meeting, Sept. 22, 1997).

Q. Tell us how you cleaned the bathroom, did you use a mop?

A. I used a rag and a bucket. I took water from the bathroom to wipe the floor.

Q. Did you clean the actual toilet?

A. I did not clean the toilet. I refused to do that. I felt ashamed of doing this kind of work because I was a team leader. I did not have to do that. I have never heard of a case of a team leader being forced to clean the bathroom before.

Currently we have more than 1,000 NIKE employees worldwide to monitor the operations at the subcontractor level. In addition to production issues, these employees are specifically trained and are responsible for Code compliance issues NIKE believes it is important to coordinate our enforcement procedures so when Code compliance enforcement issues develop, the Labor Practices Division can respond quickly to address and remedy the problem (Nike FAQ web site).

Q. Do you think talking to ESPN is the reason why you were demoted?

A. Talking to ESPN must be the reason why the manager turned on me. I was a model worker for two years. I did a lot of good things to help the factory. I got bonuses in 1996 and 1997. For the last two years, if I made any mistake the manager would just tell me. Why then suddenly they followed me around, why then did they continue to yell at me for every little thing?

Although violations of the Code can and do occur, the correction and prevention of further violations is usually managed through a partnership process that includes an exchange of information on the violation, agreement on an action plan, and monitoring to assure that action is completed to NIKE's satisfaction (Nike FAQ web site Nikeworkers.com)

After these bouts of threats and deliberate humiliation, the Nike factory forced Ms Nguyen to sign a letter of resignation (Campaign For Labor Rights 5/13/98). Ms. Lap Nguyen, despite her excellent employment history was demoted to cleaning the toilet from a team leader position after talking to ESPN and NBC News reporters. Nike executives have refused multiple pleas to review her case. One reason may be that Sam Yang, unlike the four subcontractors Phil Knight reported severing ties with (Nike web document, 1998 stockholder's meeting; Manning, 1997), this sub contractor from Korea controls a significant portion of Nike's overall production.

From the perspective of Adorno's method, the Lap Nguyen story has several implications. The rational identity posited in Nike's press releases and web documents preserves a place for the utopia thinking of Nike executives. They point to what is possible to achieve if their code of conduct could be realized in actuality. Nike's self-identity embodies ideals that are more and less than the story of Ms. Lap Nguyen. The story reveals the less, in that Nike has ideal qualities it is not able to real. The story reveals the more because Nike comprehends the implications of labor exploitation and abuse. The story reveals that Nike is other than its ideal code of conduct. Nike has a non-identity; it is other than its ideal and its potentiality; Nike's here and now is different. Nike's claimed identity between the equal rights and protections enforced on behalf of all its workers and the present state of affairs as told by Ms. Nguyen is false. This negation points our analysis to what ways in which Nike restricts and restrains its potential.

How does Nike restrict and restrain its potential? Nike, to me, has confused advertising with propaganda. In advertising, it is accepted practice to make false claims about a product: "buying this sneaker will make you into a Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods." But, to make false claims about labor practice is to engage in propaganda in order to attract consumers and investors. The labor practices department of Nike, employing over 1,000 monitors, is, for all intents and purposes, a public relations force. As read from Phil Knight's speech extracts, Ms. Nguyen's story is seen as an exception to policy, an isolated incident that is not of great concern. The general code still holds even though the particular case is outside that code. Yet, within this particular story, the universal seems to breakdown. Nike is not able to control the behavior of its subcontract firms. Nike is unable to perceive its own subjectivity in its treatment of particular employees. Through its self-characterization as a virtual company, who does not itself produce anything, Nike distances its identity from the factory floor of its subcontractors. By this rationality, Ms. Nguyen does not work for Nike, she works for Sam Yang. In this way Nike lives within its own illusion. This is an illusion that becomes the working reality of Sam Yang and Ms. Nguyen. Yet, there is an ideal which Nike would like to realize, the ability to monitor the labor practices of its subcontractors and to bring about health, safety, and fairness to its factory workers.

Historical Materialism. In this section I want to briefly apply Marcuse's approach to dialectic analysis. Like Horkheimer and Ordorno, Marcuse posits a gulf between extant human existence and the unfulfilled potential. But, Marcuse focuses more on the historical realization of unrealized potential. For Nike, this means looking at the development of new labor practices within the boundaries set by Nike's old labor practices. For example, after growing consumer protest to Nike' use of child labor in the manufacture of soccer balls in Pakistan, Nike changed the age limit to 16 and created schools for workers' children. After the release of the Ernst & Young audit and the ESPN expose of Nike labor practices during the Olympics, Phil Knight said Nike was going to implement fundamental changes to its labor practices. Phil Knight announced on May 13^th, 1998 (Campaign for Labor Rights, 1998):

1. Committed to "expanding its current independent monitoring programs to include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations and educational institutions and making summaries of the findings public."
2. Committed to "adopting U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) indoor air quality standards for all footwear factories." and
3. Committed to "increasing the minimum age of footwear factory workers to 18, and the minimum age for all other light-manufacturing workers (apparel, accessories, equipment) to 16."
4. Committed to "expanding education programs for workers in all Nike footwear factories; increasing support of its current micro-enterprise loan program to 1,000 families each in Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and Thailand; and funding university research and open forums to explore issues related to global manufacturing and responsible business practices such as independent monitoring and air quality standards."

In Phil Knight's recent concessions, there is nothing about raising the daily wage by one dollar, a move that would elevate the worker from poverty wage to living wage. And the history of Nike is that when wages and worker solidarity rises, Nike deserts for another country, again revealing itself as negative to worker interests. The cultural and ethic experiences of Asian women are suppressed by a colonial ideology that sets up Western culture as a more developed than Asian culture.

Q. "Is the minimum wage enough to provide for a livelihood?"

A. The picture of workers who are malnourished because they can't afford to eat is repeatedly refuted by unbiased, tangible evidence. On the broadest level, the research firm Jardine Fleming, a subsidiary Jardine Matheson, Honng Kong, has developed what it calls its NIKE Index. In simplest terms, the NIKE Index tracks a developing economy's economic development by NIKE's activity in each country. Economic development starts when NIKE products are starting to be manufactured there(Indonesia, 1989; Vietnam, 1996). The economy hits the second stage -- development at a level where per capita income indicates labor flowing from basic industries like footwear and textiles to advanced industries like electronics and cars (Hong Kong, 1985; Korea, 1990); and an economy is fully developed when NIKE has developed that country as a major market (Singapore, 1991; Japan, 1984; Korea, 1994) (Nike FAQ web site).

Nike's ideal self-identity is that it promotes economic development as it transfers production to repressed countries with poverty labor havens. The Nike PR machine functions in the interest of White-male dominated Western capitalist interests. Asian women are victims of Nike policies that restrict pay to poverty levels, sanction corporal punishment, and design toxic production processes into sneaker manufacture.

Yet, from Marcuse's historical materialism perspective, what we are observing is the ongoing struggle of capital and labor. For Nike to be what it espouses it must be transformed into what it is not: Nike must overcome its ideology or worker potentialities will not be realized. Can Nike become its opposite or will it remain a contradiction? As Nike moves to make its code of conduct real, it is gradually abolishing cruder forms of labor exploitation (e.g. child labor, corporal punishment, and health hazards). But, the exploitation of Asian women in a male system of Western domination does not appear to be changing. The story of Lap Nguyen contradicts the alleged dignity of the Nike worker in its code of conduct. The story presents us with an entire class of labor that negates Nike's revered principles.

Marcuse, more than Horkheimer and Ordorno, see this unfulfilled potential as the basis of radical revolution. "If revolution fails to further human fulfillment, it betrays its purpose and, as a consequence, cannot justify itself as progressive" (Held, 1980: 233). Nike's portrayal of self-identity is as a progressive instrument of revolution; Nike is bringing economic transformation to the Asian world. Of course, Marcuse is not talking about one institution's transformation, but instead the revolution from capitalist relations to a labor process, which is self-directed and free in its activity (Held, 1980: 236). Yet, we can ask, how is Nike advancing the human existence of half a million Asian workers? Nike's purpose is not the fulfillment of its workers' human potential, it is the accumulation of capital. As the accumulation of capital exacerbates poverty, and rapid technological change leads to the 'rle of dead matter over the human world,' the fundamental nature of workers' alienation is exposed' that is, their alienation from their product, process of work 'fellow-man,' and species being (Held, 1980: 237).

The Swoosh is a product of Asian labor that is independent of the worker because the Nike worker has no control over the labor process. Nike is restricting the possibilities for wage-workers to take control of the labor process through democratic action. Working to produce shoes in a system they do not control and producing what they can not afford to wear negates the self-fulfillment of Nike workers. The fundamental transformation of the Nike labor process through some Third World revolution does not appear to be on the horizon. The emancipatory revolution of Ms. Lap Nguyen to attain work in a Nike free of contradictions is a dialectic without historical synthesis" " the dialectic is, as it was for Horkheimer, unconcluded and open" (Held, 1980: 241). The boycott efforts of activists to educate consumers, strikes for more bathrooms and livable wages by workers, Nike's revisions to its code of conduct, and our own critical gaze at Nike's labor process does not add up to a revolutionary movement that would transform Nike to what it is not.