An excerpt from Chapter 3 of A New Ecological Politics - the upcoming book by Kevin MacKay
Direct political messaging by elites is an effective means to influence the worldview and behaviour of subordinate groups, but other aspects of the dominant culture are effective precisely because they are not associated with any one political interest or party. Instead they form part of the cultural background, appearing as merely “common sense”, while in fact having aspects that are profoundly ideological.
A specific example in North America is the saying “it’s just business”. This statement is usually uttered when some kind of economic relationship encounters a conflict – whether between the material interests of various parties, or between one’s material interests and a limiting social sanction or regulation. When one party to the relationship abandons social norms of reciprocity, cooperation and fairness in order to assert their economic interests and “win” the confrontation, this cut-throat behaviour is justified by saying “it’s just business”. A large corporation uses high-powered accounting firms to dodge paying taxes? Just business. Another corporation uses high-priced lawyers to skirt environmental regulations? Just business. A residential tenant becomes ill and is no longer able to afford rent? When the landlord cuts off communication and instead files eviction papers, throwing a desperate person out of their home, the action is once again justified as “just business”.
“Just business” is a statement that contains an entire host of cultural assumptions that fundamentally support the oligarchic structure of industrial capitalism, but which are not explicitly articulated or linked to any one political actor. Rather, these assumptions structure the very cultural terrain on which identifiable political and economic interests contest. It points to a “common sense” understanding shared by Republicans and Democrats alike – that the laws of the marketplace, the protection of one’s material interest over another’s, and the pursuit of private profit over public good, are all justifiable under capitalism. The statement suggests a contradiction between the values of social solidarity that normally govern human behaviour, and the value-neutral, or even hostile, nature of profit-seeking economic activity. If “business” implies a particularly mercenary morality, there clearly exists a world of “not business”, in which such behaviour is condemned. However, “just business” resolves this contradiction by asserting which value set is more fundamental (the marketplace wins out over social solidarity), and by basically replying “what are you going to do?” to those who might cry foul at the amoral business decisions that routinely result.
The ideological power of “just business” is to reconcile value contradictions both externally, in terms of how actors are perceived by others, but also internally, in terms of how individuals understand their own behaviour. This reconciliation is effective regardless of the personal motives involved. Returning to the example of the landlord evicting the sick tenant, the landlord may be a normally compassionate, and even politically progressive person. However, when faced with a situation of receiving no rental income, a direct threat to their own economic interests, and in the case of small landlords a possible threat to their economic viability, “just business” enables them to reconcile the dissonance created by an objectively amoral action – throwing a sick, poor person into the street. The landlord feels bad, they would prefer not to have to do it, but in their mind they are ultimately forced to because of the basic economic and moral structure of private rental housing markets. The moral responsibility for the landlord’s behaviour is thus outsourced or externalized (the economy / capitalism made me do it), while the entire situation is simultaneously cast as a discrete, unfortunate event, and not as an instance of structural violence.
“It’s just business” offers an explanation for oppression and injustice that personalizes these conditions and directs attention away from a system that produces oppression and injustice on a massive scale. We are not encouraged to question the lack of affordable housing, the lack of adequate economic support for individuals too sick to work, the lack of free healthcare, or the lack of support for small businesspeople (including landlords) who encounter economic hardship.
If you enjoyed reading this excerpt and want to be kept abreast of future book excerpts, news, and events, please follow Kevin at the Radical Transformation page on Facebook.
