|
¡@
Foxconn and structural violence
By Hsu Szu-chien ®}´µ»ü
Thursday, Jun 10, 2010, Page 8
In the 1960s, peace and conflict studies pioneer Johan
Galtung proposed the thought-provoking concept of ¡§structural violence.¡¨
Structural violence refers to a kind of social structure under which, although
there may be no direct physical violence by one group of people against another,
one group of people does not have the same access as others to the conditions
needed for existence and this constitutes a threat against the less privileged
group. Although this threat to survival is not caused by direct violence, such a
social structure and environment can be said to constitute structural violence
against those in a weaker position.
The Chinese Communist Party differs from the right-wing authoritarian forms of
government that prevail in many other developing countries in that, at least as
far as its political slogans are concerned, it wants not just ¡§development¡¨ but
¡§peaceful development.¡¨ Government slogans call not for serving the interests of
capitalists, but for taking care of disadvantaged groups so as to create a
¡§harmonious society.¡¨
Despite these slogans, however, in reality the Chinese economy has become deeply
integrated with the global capitalist system. It is therefore unavoidable that
the immense structural violence of the capitalist system should penetrate into
China. The structural violence of global capitalism is expressed in the
production conditions of every factory and in workers¡¦ living environment.
Although Foxconn¡¦s factories cannot honestly be called sweatshops, the so-called
military-style management employed there is no different from that of real
sweatshops in terms of generating structural violence. The purpose in both cases
is, under the ruthless conditions of the global capitalist system, to maximize
profits by cutting costs. No matter whether factories are owned by Chinese,
Taiwanese or other foreign capital, they all form the driving force of what is
called the ¡§Chinese model¡¨ of development. All of them have quietly given rise
to this structural violence.
But why should the structural violence of capitalism be especially obvious in
China? After all, harsh working conditions are to be found in factories all over
the world. The difference is that such conditions come to light more easily in
many countries than they do in China. It could be because of protest actions by
the workers themselves, or thanks to monitoring and whistleblowing by local
civic groups, or exposure by international organizations. Most importantly, it
is because the government in those places has to deal with the problem, so that
in the end legislative or judicial bodies will impose limits on work conditions
that are too harsh.
In China, however, there are no independent labor unions and civic groups have
very little influence. Moreover, local governments in China lack independent
judicial and legislative structures. The government generally acts as the
motivator for local regional economic development and therefore has an intrinsic
tendency to look after the interests of local businesses. There are probably few
examples around the world of such business-friendly ¡§service-oriented
governments.¡¨ Intentionally or otherwise, China¡¦s party-state authoritarian form
of government provides a favorable environment for the structural violence of
global capitalism.
The interesting thing is that what has drawn worldwide attention to the events
at Foxconn is the Chinese media and the Internet. The appearance in these places
of reports about Foxconn indicates that, whatever the motivation, China¡¦s
government and society seem to be becoming aware and cognizant of the negative
implications of such occurrences. This awakening consciousness could be a start
and a turning point in getting rid of this structural violence.
Commoditized and alienated labor conditions are a form of immense indirect
violence, but this violence is concealed in the formless structure of the
production conditions and so can easily be overlooked. Eliminating this
structural violence is not something that can be achieved simply by penalizing
employers and companies. It can only be done through structural adjustments.
Responsibility for this lies not only with China. As Taiwan deepens its trade
and economic relations with China, our government and society should recognize
that we, too, bear some of the responsibility. In a global economy, businesses¡¦
social responsibilities and everyone¡¦s responsibilities as global citizens
should not be bounded by national borders because the flow of capital crosses
borders too.
Therefore, serious consideration must be given to including provisions
concerning human rights and corporate social responsibilities in the
soon-to-be-signed cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement.
Hsu Szu-chien is an assistant research fellow in the
provisional office of the Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica.
¡@
|
