Branding ≠ Capitalism: Another Naomi Klein Fallacy

When it comes to flyweight and academically insubstantial commentary, few outdo pseudo anti-globalization author Naomi Klein. Aside from dubious wholesale denunciations of "capitalism" via The Shock Doctrine--as if there were a single all-encompassing version of it--we also have inane economic analyses of trade and other fallacious ramblings.

Today, however, I am here to debunk her earlier work which established her reputation among many of the impressionable and those who simply don't know any better, No Logo. An overly long jumble of rewarmed Marxist critiques of capitalism, it takes aim at branding as an artefact of modernity. But, since penetrating insight is not one of the hallmarks of Naomi Klein-style writing, this suggestion is easy to dispel. Something which unites her sort with those she purports to condemn is the assumption that branding goes hand in hand with contemporary capitalism.

Not so. In my recent research work, I've once again been reminded of this fact by archaeological research which refutes this notion. If we are to take a longer view perspective of things, branding for the purposes of commercial exchange did not originate during the past few centuries of industrialization. Try Iraq circa 4000 BC for instance according to David Wengrow at UCL, our sister University of London institution:

Commodity branding has been characterized as the distinguishing cultural move of late capitalism and is widely viewed as a historically distinctive feature of the modern global economy. The brand's rise to prominence following the Industrial Revolution and the attendant shift of corporate enterprise towards the dissemination of image-based products have been further cited as contributing to the erosion of older forms of identity such as those based on kinship and class. However, comparisons between recent forms of branding and much earlier modes of commodity marking associated with the Urban Revolution of the fourth millennium BC suggest that systems of branding address a paradox common to all economies of scale and are therefore likely to arise (and to have arisen) under a wide range of ideological and institutional conditions, including those of sacred hierarchies and stratified states. An examination of the material and cognitive properties of sealing practices and the changing functions of seals in their transition from personal amulets to a means of labeling mass-produced goods helps to unpack the interlocking (pre)histories of quality control, authenticity, and ownership that make up the modern brand.

I've also borrowed a very interesting edited work entitled Cultures of Commodity Branding by Andrew Bevan and again David Wengrow which expands on the journal article by including several more examples of branding exercises drawn from antiquity:

Commodity branding did not emerge with contemporary global capitalism. In fact, the authors of this volume show that the cultural history of branding stretches back to the beginnings of urban life in the ancient Near East and Egypt, and can be found in various permutations in places as diverse as the Bronze Age Mediterranean, and Early Modern Europe. What the contributions in this volume also vividly document, both in past social contexts and recent ones as diverse as the kingdoms of Cameroon, Socialist Hungary or online EBay auctions, is the need to understand branded commodities as part of a broader continuum with techniques of gift-giving, ritual, and sacrifice. This volume obliges specialists in marketing and economics to reassess the relationship between branding and capitalism, as well as adding an important new concept to the work of economic anthropologists and archaeologists.

There's also an earlier post on the superb Material World anthropology blog from which the image of a seal at the top of this entry is taken.

The main takeaway is that branding and the emergence of global capitalism are not inseparable concepts, with the former having appeared on the scene long before the latter. It is indeed a sad reflection on our age how someone with Geraldo Rivera-like investigative reporting chops and non-existent scholarly chops receives so much attention. Call it the Sarah Palin self-promotion effect. Further investigation, however, easily betrays a characteristic lack of awareness or erudition.

Anti-Globalization Protesters Outlast Royals, Too

I am sure that had they been on the parade route of a Middle East royal wedding, they'd have met a grislier fate: anti-war, anti-globalization protester Brian Haw and friends have been in the vicinity of Parliament Square--right across the Parliament building--since 2001. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya...Blair, Brown, Cameron...wars and prime ministers have come and gone, but these folks remain a literally immovable fixture of the British political landscape. They even have a fairly elaborate website if you're curious.

My favourite placard obviously remains "CAPITALISM ISN'T WORKING." Despite being a rather unpleasant eyesore at first, at least some Londoners may have come to view the so-called Peace Camp as a tourist attraction in its own right. Although Parliament Square was fenced out a few months ago, Brian Haw and a number of his hardcore holdout Peace Camp buddies remain on its perimeter. And so it has proven that their lasting power is again validated as today, as billions of persons around the world focussed their eyes on Central London, they remained in its midst. This despite the best efforts of Tory PM Cameron, Home Secretary Teresa May, and Mayor Boris Johnson to eject them prior to the wedding:

Prince William and Kate Middleton will be driven past anti-war campaigners and rag-bag of other protestors on Parliament Square after a failure by the combined might of David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Westminster City Council to get them moved in time for the royal wedding. The unsightly collection of placards, sheds and tents will remain in place on the day of the royal wedding, yards from the entrance to Westminster Abbey. The cars carrying the bride and groom will pass alongside Parliament Square on the way to the Abbey.

The Prime Minister and the Mayor of London have both made it clear in the weeks and months leading up to today’s event, which will be beamed to millions around the world, that the so-called “peace camp” would be dismantled. Mrs May created a specific amendment in the Police Reform Bill to deal with the protestors but that has still to become law. Westminster City Council is hopeful that legal action next month will result in the protestors' removal, but it will be too late to stop the environment around the Abbey being disfigured by the signs and daubed slogans.

While you may not agree with their message in its entirety, you have to admire the persistence of this ragtag bunch. Neither the passage of a decade nor the combined might of the British political establishment has dislodged them. In a way, they are as British as the royal wedding as their dogged persistence demonstrates the fabled "stiff upper lip."

UPDATE: Brian Haw and the rest claim they were harassed some more today ("Day 3618") for good measure; the pictures of them along the parade route say a lot nonetheless. Watching the footage, the BBC cuts out as soon as Wills & Kate's carriage reach Parliament Square [!] I wonder why. Brian Haw gets the last hee-haw.

Wimps Become Economists, Toughies Riot Police

In this day and age, let's just say economists have an image problem. Likely as a consequence of being cheap and selfish as a rule, economists are usually adjudged among the least attractive of academics. While their political perspectives vary, something that unites your Milton Friedman with your Paul Krugman is a certain wussiness that's difficult to transcend. That few economists predicted the global economic crisis--and indeed are culpable of to no small extent--does them no favours, either.

From a prototypically wussy profession, let's moved to a tougher one that actually requires brains as well as brawn. And, in keeping with the times, it's also become open to men and women. It is generally recognized that British police are the best in the world. But, an even more select cadre of British police are British riot police. While it too suffers from image problems, the main difference is that the ire directed towards them is usually the fallout from others' actions. The ironic thing that binds riot police to economists is that economic prescriptions protesters are displeased with are often the cause for riot police to be deployed. For instance, British students trashing parliament towards the end of last year--including quite a few LSE students, I know--had to be...calmed down. Ask the son of multimillionaire Pink Floyd frontman David Gilmour about becoming overexuberant.

While coming home from work the other day, I caught a very interesting article on the drills you must undertake to become a riot policeman in the Evening Standard. Let's say it doesn't involve inputting data into SAS or STATA or any such like. Rather, it involves reacting when folks start throwing stuff at you:

Every five weeks hundreds of police officers who have volunteered to join the Met's [Metropolitan Police] Territorial Support Group line up to face a barrage of petrol bombs, other missiles and verbal abuse from colleagues in order to prepare them for the real thing. Criticism of the Metropolitan Police's handling of recent demonstrations in the capital has been severe. But training for such duties is arduous and regular.

I joined officers in the group at the Met's public order training centre in Gravesend and, like them, donned riot gear weighing three and a half stone, grabbed a shield and prepared for action. The session began, as always, with the so-called shield run. Officers sprinted around a replica town centre in full riot gear and carrying a 5ft 6in shield. The 500-yard course had to be completed in under two minutes and 45 seconds.

Then training began in earnest. The men and women practised drills while facing a hail of flaming missiles. In tight formation the unit marched through the streets, clearing tight alleys and balconies like those of a typical London housing estate. Each officer had to stand firm as protesters hurled masonry, barriers and metal poles towards them.

Engulfed in flames and with bricks raining down on me, I could see nothing through the smoke. Glass shattered as petrol bombs hit my riot shield. I held my breath and closed my eyes, waiting for the choking fumes to disperse, eventually opening them to see a masked man sprinting towards me wielding another blazing bottle.

Someone behind bellowed the order: "Forward!" Reluctantly I raised my shield and headed towards the threat.

In an odd but real sense, the fates of economists and riot police are very much intertwined. In the larger scheme of things, though, the eggheads have far more potential to muck things up than the often reluctant enforcers. A petrol bomb for your thoughts, my dear?

G20 Protest: Battle in Seattle, Turmoil in Toronto

In case you missed it, the twin protests of the G8 and G20 summits recently held in Toronto, Canada were rather violent given the relatively quiet anti-globalization protests of the past few years. Even after spending massive sums on ensuring summit security, Toronto or "New York Run by the Swiss" as some of its adherents call it was hit hard:

The site of the weekend's Group of 20 leaders' meeting was rocked by some of the most violent protests to hit a global gathering in recent years, despite one of the most lavish security outlays in summit history. Bands of activists ran through the city's downtown Saturday, bashing windows and setting several police cars ablaze, halting public transit and prompting officials to lock down hospitals and a major shopping mall. Police responded with teargas and pepper spray, arresting nearly 600 people over the weekend, in addition to 32 detained before the summit began.

The violence had Canadian politicians and police wringing their hands after the country spent around $1 billion on security for the G-20 and a back-to-back Group of Eight summit in rural Huntsville, three hours to the north. Those precautions included a 20,000-strong security force in Toronto and a 2.4-mile-long chain-link fence surrounding a "Yellow Zone" that enclosed the area where the G-20 leaders met.

$1 billion spent on security? I am speechless. But, as the Canadian flag with the maple leaf replaced with a ganja leaf suggests in the clip above, these spontaneous outbreaks of anti-globalization sentiment are still as incoherent as before, diluting the movement (if there ever was one).