10 Reasons Business Week Missed the Dynamics of Theatrics of G -8 and Nike

by David Boje, Ph.D.

 August 1, 2001

Department of Management, MSC 3DJ, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30001/ Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001, Tel: 505-646-2391, Fax: 505-646-1372, dboje@nmsu.edu      Web:  http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje This is a symposium for the Research Methods, Organizational Development & Change, and Organization & Management Theory Divisions of the Academy of Management for presentation August, 2002 in Washington
D.C. August 6, 2001

I think a ‘G-8 play’ would be a good into our Academy of Management symposium in Washington D.C. this Tuesday.  I also see relevance to a Business Week Editorial (August 6, 2001: 64) that could be a nice way to introduce the academic audience to what is the theater of globalization, including the ways theater is used by corporations and anti-globalization activists.  I have been working with Ann and John on an article about Narrative and Time, where G-8 can be used as an example. Finally, there is relevance to the Nike and Athletic Apparel industry session Nancy Landrum and I are hosting for 50 academics studying the (code of conduct, sweatshop, living wage, and world wide protest movements) related to this industry.

I have a cartoon by Rex Babin (Sacramento bee) with a Chamber of Commerce meeting. ON the wall are photos of the protests in Seattle, Quebec City, and Genoa.  The speaker has his back to the photos, and addresses the chamber members saying, “Good news Folks! Our City’s landed the next global trade summit.”  This could be the stage setting for out protest theater in the Diplomat Ballroom of the Omni Hotel. Protestors would interrupt the meeting with signs saying:

Stop Corporate Rule Now!

Shut Down the Corporatocracy

Corporate State = Fascism

Stop Corporate Crime

Private Corporations Out of Public Government!  

Source: Funny Times: Humor, Politics & Fun, June 2001 (cover Paul Goettlich). http://www.mindfully.org/Jonik

Then, as in the Cover cartoon of Funny Times (June, 2001) there could be a reporter from Business Week saying, “Once Again, protestors have failed to get their message across.” The thesis is that, the coverage of the theatrics of protests from WTO to G-8 has failed to understand the dynamics of how the theater is multiple stages, shifting venue and drama, from day to day, and a negotiated order between protest theater groups, police, State, and corporations.  As in the medieval carnivals of old, the State allows protest, parody and satire within narrowly prescribed staging areas.   I am alerting Business Week to our event (even if we elect not to do live theater, they may be interested in the topic).

Dear Business Week Editor-In-Chief, Stephen B. Shepard:

Our Academy of Management Symposium is on the web at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/conferences/theater2001.htm I including this as a “Letter to the Editor” for your next publication. I thought the editorial (Business Week, European Edition, August 6, 2001: 64) trivialized the differences and multiplicities of types of protests, the negotiated aspects of the theatrics, and made dualistic (simplistic) good and bad labeling of the protest movement, without address the violence-provoking actions of the State, its police, and the ongoing pattern of violence to Third World workers.  The editorial proceeds to trivialize the anti-globalization movement as an action of those “naïve” “anarchists” versus the “reasonable reformers” and misguided, “middle-class consumers.”   Finally, the editorial positions Gap, Inc. and Nike Inc. as enacting codes of conduct and monitoring practices which were “successfully negotiated with some of the [reasonable reformer] groups” (p. 64).

I would like to share a different reading of G-8.  ‘G-8 is theater’ involving the clash of carnival and spectacle (and even festival).  See “Global Theatrics and Capitalism” by Boje at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/conferences/boje_global_theatrics_and_capitalism.htm for definition of terms.

First, what the Business Week Editorial ignores is how the players (Police, government, and protestors) in pre-meetings and on-going sessions during the G-8 events, re-negotiate the theatrics (where theaters of resistance will be staged, and what types of theater will be located where, and how each party will react to the other). The protest theatrics was initially arranged in zones, where, for example, the most war-like protesters do one theater (e.g. tear down barriers and engage the police), in another zone the property damagers do their forms of violent street theater, in the majority of sites there are non-violent theater zones more imitative of Gandhi and Martin Luther King there are peaceful and orderly marches and chanting by organized labor takes place, and there are several zones in which there is only carnivalesque parody and satire of power (flower and teddy bear pelting). And there is space (very limited) for the Dionysian fun seekers to do some festive dancing, etc, to have a merry time.  The news coverage focus is on recirculating images and accounts of the most extreme theater stages, while ignoring the peaceful ones.

Second, there are dynamic patterns of chaos-interaction set off etween the hundreds of sites of local theaters of protest.  Tamara (a play with many simultaneous, interactive stages) is a way to make sense of how the theatrics unfolds, and the chaos effects that spin into play as the passageways between the stages begin to be rerouted by the Police tacticians (doing spectacle theater of operation-power displays of Vadar-ish plumage) and by the protestors themselves (breaking out of their designated staging areas). For more on Tamara, see http://www.zianet.com/boje/tamara/

Third, the Business Week Editorial ignores the media-effects, the ‘theatrics of criticism and review’ before, during, and after the G-8 events.  Quite a number of commentators write reviews of the various local theaters, and try to make some analysis of the theatrical dynamics.  When, for example, on July 20 2001, a 20-year-old Italian policeman shot and killed 23-year old protestor, Carlo Giuliani (between the eyes), the media feeding frenzy set in, as did both activist, corporate, and State attempts to make sense of the tragedy.  For example, News Week describes the scenario as follows:

FOR THE FIRST FEW HOURS IT LOOKED LIKE the usual fare-if a bit more fierce this time. Like a regular weather pattern, so-called anti-globalization protesters have descended on every major economic meeting since 1999. Now Genoa too was engulfed in tear gas and shouts of rage, in hailstorms of rock-throwing at police. Surging crowds of demonstrators, many of them wearing motorcycle helmets and masks, engaged in a game of attack-and-retreat with police for several hours as they sought to outflank the authorities, all in an attempt to disrupt the G-8 summit taking place in Genoa's cordoned-off center.

But suddenly, about 3:30 p.m. Friday, everything changed. As the cops fell back one more time against a crowd assault, a lone police jeep found itself cut off by the demonstrators who swirled into the piazza. In a panic, the driver swerved to the right-and came up against a wall of broken windows and the scrawled graffiti NO MORE COPS. Young men with homemade plastic shields, wearing painters' masks against the tear gas, surrounded the jeep. One of them smashed a long piece of lumber through a window. Others pelted the remaining windows with rocks, breaking most of them. And 23-year-old Carlo Giuliani, a history student from Genoa with a black balaclava over his head, hoisted a fire extinguisher and started to throw it through the broken back window. The panicky officer inside, one of Italy's national military police, or carabinieri, leveled his 9mm Beretta 92 service pistol at Giuliani and fired twice at close range. Giuliani fell. The driver jammed into reverse-running Giuliani over on the way. The protester was dead. He had been shot through the head (Nordland & Dickey, 2001: 20).

Source: Nordland, Rod & Christopher Dickey (2001) “First blood” Newsweek; New York; Jul 30. Volume 138 Issue: 5, Page 20.

If you contrast this to other (theatrical) reviews of the event, such as Business Week (August 6th – interesting date, since it was purchased by me in Paris on July 27th), then you get a very different construction (erection) of an account of the relationship to the death and the anti-globalization protests from Seattle, Quebec City, to Genoa. 

The Business Week Editorial (p. 64 no author listed) begins:

"The bloody Group of eight summit meeting in Genoa is a watershed event. The violence that has been intensifying since the first Seattle demonstrations finally split the anti-globalization movement, with reformers of the international capitalist economy distancing themselves from the anarchists who simply want to destroy it..."

Fourth, compare this to the Aileen O'Carroll (2001) analysis of the rhetoric of the overall reporting by TV crews, you see something quite interesting. The Business Week Editorial reduces quite an array of many different kinds of theatrical events at G-8 to just two, and repeats the same duality of (good versus bad; violent versus non-violent) Protest Theater.  In addition, the Business Week Editorial makes no mention of the on-going corporate violence and abuse in Third World countries, that has provoked the demonstrations outside the closed-door corporate/State meetings in the first place.

Fifth, the Business Week Editorial is a type of theatrical review of G-8 and one that puts (a free market conservative pro-corporate apologetic) “happy face” spin on corporate behavior that includes Gap, Nike, Levi Strauss, Starbucks, and Home Depot as its heroic figures in contrast to the anti-globalists, who are typified as naive, violent, misguided, young, anarchists. The spin starts as follows by creating a rather extreme hierarchical relation among the anti-globalization protest movements, type casting "most" as informed by "naive economics" and demanding "First World labor Standards" become the standards of "Third World countries"::

This could open an opportunity for corporations to sit down and negotiate compromises with groups willing to reason. But the task may be forbidding.  The anti-globalization movement, as it stands now, is an inchocate collection of nongovernmental organizations and individuals that often hold mutually contradictory beliefs and promote clashing agendas.

Take extending First World labor standards to Third World countries. This is a major issue for most protesters, who have, of course, the best of intentions. But it is naive economics and is opposed by India and just about every other developing country. Why? The competitive advantage of many developing countries lies precisely in their lower costs of doing business.

As a point of clarification, I do not know of the existential being of any groups who are out there protesting that First and Third world standards be the same, except for Phil Knight (Nike CEO) in a speech to the Press Club in Washington D.C. in 1998 where he was applying OSHA standards to all factories, along with web pronouncements that ISO14001 environmental standards would also be erected. The anti-globalization activists I know in the Third World countries (e.g. ‘Lek’ Junya Yimprasert of Thai Labor Campaign lek@thailabour.org) and commentators, such as Jeff Ballinger (Harvard) and Tim Connor (Australia) are working to move the Athletic Apparel and other industries from starvation wages to living wages (but this is not at all that same thing as calling for the same sages across First and Third World, which by the way is OK by me). Why should Tiger Woods who signed a sponsorship agreement in September 2000 with Nike Inc. for 5 years worth $100 million make so astronomically much more than Nike sweatshop factory workers. With all winnings and endorsement earning this year, Tiger Woods will get $55,000 a day; A Thai worker in a Nike factory would have to work for 14,000 days or 38 years to receive the same amount. 

Sixth, the Business Week Editorial then goes no to invoke what we in the activist movement know to be the "Nike Index."  That is, the theory that wherever Nike roams from country to country, the country it leaves is better off economically than when Nike first came there, with the inference that Nike has some how caused this economic progress.  Jardine Fleming described this as the "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). Source: Nike FAQ - http://info.nike.com/faq/main.html 

Compare the ‘Nike Index” with the Business Week Editorial, which proceeds as follows:

As Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have shown, the road to prosperity often begins with low wages and cheap exports. As skills increase, the sophistication and value of goods produced rise, allowing wages and income to move higher... But buckling under the pressure to extend U.S. or European pay scales to emerging nations could mean shutting down local factories - hurting people, not helping them (Business Week, August 6, 2001: 64).

The logic parallels between the Nike Index narrative and the Business Week theory are quite obvious. Critical postmodernists call such narratives, examples of the ‘progress myth,’ extolling the virtues of progress, while ignoring any of the downside effects. 

Seventh, additional, the narrative assumes a linear theory of time, and makes the ‘semblance’ of cause-effect linkages between events that are both debatable and problematic. There are many empirical studies that reveal the mythological aspects of this pseudo causal linking of apparent causes and apparent effects. Adjusted wage rates in Indonesia, Mexico and other countries where Nike, Gap, Reebok, etc. have located have fallen, not risen. The anti-globalizations movements, I know, are working to bring about an end to paying poverty wages well below the living standards of each country.

Eighth, skipping to the part about Nike, the “progress myth” spin continues in the Business Week Editorial and proceeds to heroize some fairly questionable corporate players:

Imposing high 21st century labor and environmental standards on developing countries runs the risk of appearing hypocritical and undermining growth.

Despite these difficulties, smart CEOs should proceed in opening a dialogue with the reformers. Many have already successfully negotiated with some of the groups. Gap Inc., Nike Inc., and others have adopted codes of conduct for their overseas plants, hiring monitors to oversee compliance (Business Week, August 6, 2001: 64).

This is a confusion of the editorial team of “espoused theory” with “theory of action,” a way to make the “spectacle theatrics” of media-corporations, more real than the reality of labor practices around the globe.  Research on corporate Code of Conducts is consistent in analyzing their use as primarily a PR spectacle, a way to fend of critique and reform so that business-as-usual can be practiced, and appearing to be reasonable (See Boje et. al, 2001 for code of conduct research review http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/AA/index.html). This group is meeting all day, this Saturday (August 4^th) at the Academy of Management meetings in Washington D.C. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/nike/pdw_academy_proposal.htm

Ninth, by dualizing the anti-globalization movements into just the two categories of “reformers of the international capitalist economy” with the (mostly) “anarchists,” the Business Week Editorial limits the Codes of Conduct field of dialog (and debate) to those already in alignment with corporate thinking.  This also ignores the ongoing violations of corporate Codes of Conduct. Each day I read reports from around the world (especially Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico, El Salvador/Honduras, and China) that dispute the claim that Codes of Conduct have accomplished “ethical manufacturing standards for… overseas practices” business Week, August 6, 2001: 64).  I know of only one academic article that makes such a claim and that was written by the University of Oregon Sports marketing faculty (Kahle, Boush, & Phelps, 2000). 

Kahle, Lynn R., Boush, David M. & Phelps, Mark (2000). "Good Morning, Vietnam: An Ethical Analysis of Nike Activities in Southeast Asia. Sport Marketing Quarterly. Vol. 9 (1): 43- 52.

Ten, the Business week Editorial ends with yet another truth claim that further dualizes the anti-globalization movements into just two factions:

The truth is that many of the demands of the anti-globalization groups reflect the values of middle-class consumers in the U.S. and Europe, especially the young.  It may be hard, but by working with reasonable reformers of the global system, corporations can not only help others, they just might help themselves.

The end point of the duality has shifted form “reformers of the international capitalist economy” to “reasonable reformers” and corporate CEOs are instructed by Business Week to limit their dialog to the “reasonable reformers.”  Further, the “truth” claim is that the anti-globalization movement is a consumer movement. 

If we contrast the Business Week Editorial with the Aileen O'Carroll (2001) analysis of G-8 Business Week, news speak, we see how several assumptions get erected:

Assumptions by Business Week Editorial:

1.      The assumption is that 'the ruling class are peaceful. The protesters are violent'.

2.      The assumption that it is the right of the G-8 powers to meet, the protesters have no right to be there.

3.      The assumption that a minority causes violence.

a.      Questions about the nature of the violence.

b.      Questions about whom these people are.

c.      Questions about why are they doing it.

d.      Questions about the rioters and the wider movement

4.      The assumption that the protests aren't political. Real politics is conducted by the world leaders only (behind closed doors).

Source: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/news/2001/genoatv_july.html  “What did you hear about Genoa? Review of TV coverage of the Genoa G-8 protests “ by Aileen O'Carroll, at Workers Solidarity Movement, 23 July, 2001.

Source: Business Week August 6, 2001 (cover).

Finally, looking at the theme of the Business Week issue, “The Best Global Brands: Our first ranking of the world’s most valuable brands.”  On the cover is a planet (land and oceans) being encircled by virtualistic, satellite-like corporate brand logos (McDonalds, Coca Cola, IBM, Kraft, Sony, BMW, Nokia, Heineken, M TV, and Starbucks).

Source:  Business Week, August 6, 2001 pp. 44-45

In the special report is an image of Ken and Barbi, both in Nike sneakers and Ken also with Nike sweatshirt, are walking with their Amazon.com and Gap purchases drinking Starbucks coffee and Coca Cola, against a backdrop of logo billboards in the virtual marketplace (pp. 44-45). 

As Business Week editor, Stephen B. Shepard comments, “a great brand is a promise, a compact with a customer about quality, reliability, innovation, and even community” (Business Week, August 6, 2001: 1). This to me is a visual image of the spectacle of logo-fetish-late-capitalism, encircling the planet.

In sum, the Business Week Editorial is a sleight of hand, a misdirection through subtle distraction from the diversity of theatrics at G-8 and a way to make it seem that activists are violent, but Police and corporations are not violent, and that protests about corporate leaders meeting behind closed doors to decide the fate of late postindustrial global capitalism is not the business of all the planet’s people. 

Sincerely,

David M. Boje, Ph.D.