Untitled Analytical Essay #3
Written for my english class. We were to compare any combination of essays that we read over the course of the semester in order to analyze their contents and make an argument using that analysis.
Industries with unethical practices do not operate on the basis that what they do is unethical. They do not publicly acknowledge any wrongdoings or any of their own faults. In fact many of these industries with unethical practices go out of their way to blame others for global issues. These industries work under the cloud of confusion and secrecy; the less people know the better. These industries want as few people looking in as possible. They strive to delude the public and evade criticism and blame. This public deceit is how these industries prosper and often profit. However, in order to avoid blame these industries must shift any fault onto the public at large. They do this under the premise that: people who do x correctly will benefit while people who do x incorrectly will fail. This quickly shifts the blame onto the victims and then has the victims fight among themselves. These industries act like they are a neutral party to global issues when in fact they are the perpetrators. The essays Hot Money by Naomi Klein, Tell Me How It Ends, An Essay in Forty Questions by Valeria Luiselli, and The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food by Micheal Moss all show how each respective industry enables unethical practices and uses victim blaming to protect themselves from any fault. These industries are not being held accountable for their shortcomings yet they find the need to hold the general public accountable. Whether it be immigration, or junk food, or natural resources, these large industries are evading all blame through a process of dehumanization and placing blame on their victims. These industries want the public to believe that there is a right and wrong way of doing things and that these ways are intrinsic to society, but the truth is that these ways of operating are hurting people and they are extrinsic issues that society would be better off without.
Immigrants are caught up in a process of dehumanization on their journey to American residency. American law does not give these “aliens” the unalienable rights it does give to their own citizens. The American immigration system has created a box around these so-called “aliens” in order to “other” them. By creating such a level of separation and a division it is easier to treat immigrants with indifference or disdain than with compassion. This goes for judges, border police, politicians, and citizens themselves. By delineating immigrants as “aliens” “others” or even “less than” the society at large deems this group unworthy of empathy. “The attitude in the United States toward child migrants is not always blatantly negative, but generally speaking, it is based on a kind of misunderstanding or voluntary ignorance” (Luiselli 84). This mentality that treats immigrants with such indifference and apathy enables the mistreatment at the border. People are leaving their countries in search of humanitarian aid only to be treated with ambivalence and the only small amount of empathy comes from the fact that some of these immigrants are children. This process of dehumanization does not serve to aid immigrants in any way; this dehumanization comes from the top down. It is written in the immigration policies and it is spoken at the border and in courtrooms. This dehumanizing language is embedded in the culture so the root of the problem lies within the system.
On this same point, victim blaming in the immigration system is rampant. Luiselli details the extensive questioning that immigrants face at the border. More specifically what it takes for a child immigrant to get a lawyer, “So, in the warped world of immigration, a correct answer is when, for example, a girl reveals that her father is an alcoholic who physically or sexually abused her” (61). This makes clear that only if the child is willing and able to share their trauma are they deserving of help in the eyes of the American immigration system. The premise behind these correct answers is deceiving in the most subtle of ways. The idea of a correct answer insinuates that there are incorrect reasons for immigrating and that if someone is turned away then it is their fault for immigrating with an incorrect reason or failing to communicate their correct reason. The American immigration system seeks to blame the victims for their shortcomings instead of providing assistance to the real systemic issue at hand. Immigrants do not get turned away at the border because they do not need asylum they get turned away because they were not well equipped enough to explain why they needed asylum. The US government never gave them these tools for success and then blames them for their failures.
Large junk food companies do not resonate with their customers, in fact they do as much as possible to separate themselves from said customers. The CEO of General MIlls, when confronted with the issue of obesity being caused by junk foods, said, “that consumers were ‘fickle.’. . . Sometimes they worried about sugar, other times fat” (Moss 259). What is calling consumers “fickle” if not victim blaming through a process of dehumanization. The CEO of General Mills is not attempting to put himself in the position of his consumers. He purely cares about the profits of the company. These large food companies do not care enough about their consumers to listen to what the consumers might actually want. They see their consumers as an entity that should never have any agency for themselves. By viewing consumers as mindless money bags large food companies are making clear that they only care about their profits. The consumer is not a person with people they care about and people who care for them, the consumer is a source of income. One that these companies intend to suck dry no matter the ethics behind their purchases.
Similarly, large junk food companies seek to blame their own customers for health concerns. These companies are relying on victim blaming instead of correcting the issue because it is easier and more profitable. The former C.E.O. of Philip Morris made clear to Moss that the mindset of these large food companies, especially prior to the 1990s, is that “we're not putting a gun to their [consumers] head to eat it”. In other words no one is forcing them to eat unhealthy foods, therefore if consumers are suffering from junk food it is of their own doing (265). The industry determined that it would be too hard to make healthier options. That if consumers were not so obsessed with eating junk foods then it would be easier for them to choose healthier options and thus there would not be an obesity issue. Consumers should not be at fault for consuming products they do not make. They eat the junk foods because they taste good and have a good price point. Is it that impossible or unthinkable to create food that has a price point competitive with that of junk food and tastes good? It is not. It is not unfathomable or inconceivable, it could be a reality. The only thing standing in the way of a healthier consumer base is the companies who sell to these consumers. Yet, these companies are acting like they are not the perpetrators contributing to a health crisis. These large food companies refuse to take accountability and thrust that accountability onto others. The unethical part not only comes in when they shift the blame, but when they shift the blame onto their victims.
When it comes to natural resources big oil companies and governments do their best to make the impending climate crisis seem so distant and irrelevant. By making this seem so distant and unimportant this industry is unethically misleading the public. They are leading people to believe that all is well, when in reality the clock is ticking. This is a form of dehumanization. They are not just misleading the public but they are making the issue at large look less than important. Klein makes clear that by privatizing industries, providing tax breaks, and removing restrictions these governments have made it seem that the issue of climate change is small potatoes, “And together these pillars form an ideological wall that has blocked a serious response to climate change for decades'' (212). This blockage prevents the public from really having a grasp of what the stakes are. By not knowing then the public cannot be at fault for what has transpired within the oil industry. Yet, big oil companies and governments on every level tell everyday people to conserve and to recycle knowing that the major contribution to the declining climate does not come from ordinary people, but from corporations themselves. Again, the victims are being blamed for problems that they neither created nor have the solution to.
Continuously, national governments and large oil companies have consistently tried to blame the public at large for the climate crisis. When, in truth, the climate crisis is affecting everyday consumers the most and they are not at fault for this. “As governments came together to debate responses to climate change, strong voices from developing countries spoke up, insisting that the core of the problem was the high-consumption lifestyle that dominated in the West” (Klein 214). This proves that national governments are more in support of large oil companies than in support of protecting the public. By blaming everyday people for the struggling climate they are avoiding the true issue. When they could have oil companies more regulated they do not because this might have a negative impact on their countries economies. Big oil companies and governments tell everyday people to conserve and to recycle knowing that the major contribution to the declining climate does not come from ordinary people, but from corporations themselves. Again, the victims are being blamed for problems that they neither created nor have the solution to. National governments are acting like corporations and in doing so they are adopting the same ethics, or lack thereof. National governments are meant to protect their citizens, yet here they are blaming these same citizens for things that are out of their control. National government and oil companies are acting like they are not the perpetrators of this crisis. As opposed to holding each other and oil companies accountable, they are holding the public accountable. The public, who has no real influence or impact, is being held accountable for something that is out of their control.
In conclusion, whenever unethical practices are at play industries move to place the blame on the victims for their shortcomings while minimizing the problem and dehumanizing the people. All of these industries push the blame back onto the consumers, who are the ultimate victims here. Whether it be blaming the immigrants for not answering questions correctly, or blaming consumers for being too picky to make healthier options, or blaming the climate crisis on individuals who use single use plastics; these industries are shifting the blame onto their victims. Again, the victims are being blamed for problems that they neither created nor have the solution to. National governments need to act ethically and they need to step in when other entities stop acting ethically and assert governmental regulations. Without ethics and proper government regulation, the public is just going to be taken advantage of.
Works Cited
Luiselli, Valeria. “Tell Me How It Ends, An Essay in Forty Questions” Coffee House Press, 2017.
Klein, Naomi “Hot Money.” The New Humanities Reader, 6th ed., edited by Miller, Richard E. and Kurt Spellmeyer. Cengage Learning, 2019. pp. 206-228.
Moss, Michael. "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food." The New Humanities Reader, 6th ed., edited by Miller, Richard E. and Kurt Spellmeyer. Cengage Learning, 2019. pp. 256-275.