This post is partly inspired by the video 'CON: Django Uncomplained' which talks about the brilliant depiction of slavery in the movie Django Unchained. Also, this is definitely going to be a serious topic and thus warrants a tone of writing that is less exciting and more concise. I do not have strong opinions on most things I write below- these are merely observations. There is no underlying theme of criticism of slavery that I wish to have, since it would impede an objective understanding of the phenomenon. That probably sounds a bit cruel but hey- people have done worse things than write unbiased blog posts on slavery.
Slavery is an interesting phenomenon. Well, for most part WAS an interesting phenomenon since slavery in the traditional sense is nearly non-existent now. But the spirit of slavery lives on in many things that we do on a day-to-day basis. The fact that many of us do (fairly monotonous) things on a 'day-to-day' basis to earn our living is itself one of the stronger manifestations of slavery in the modern day. We are slaves to routine, to consumer culture, to our friends and family, to our jobs. But how is that possible you ask? The definition of slavery can be broadened to include such things by defining it thus: 'Acting on the will of others to make a living for yourself'. Now, this definition does not talk about whether the slave gets wages/not or whether he enjoys being a slave. However, these are details which I believe depend on the situations. You might be naturally obediant/submissive person who listens to your parents/husband/wife/friends or you may not be. But if you act in such ways as to please other people and place other people's interests consistently above your own, you are a slave.
Traditionally, slaves were required to perform mundane tasks at a very large scale and generate disproportionate profits to the owners. They were unpaid and were not guaranteed any sort of human rights. I'm not as interested in the economics of slavery (valuing a him as a series of possible future cash-flows discounted for the behavioural and health risks that society believes slaves to have- risks which would impact the capacity and willingness of a slave to work) as much as the social aspects of slavery. They were expected to be quiet, hard-working and efficient at doing the tasks they were expected to do. But these aspects would characterise a large number of slaves and thus it would be difficult to stand out consistently for a slave who had only these characteristics. For, these are all attributes which can be sacrificed by an owner with deep enough pockets. A magic ingredient is the self-belief that a slave possesses that he is inferior to his owner and thus incapable of doing things that his owner can do and as a consequence, undeserving of all the pleasures that the owner enjoys. A homogenous belief in servitude is still not enough though to keep the slaves under them since there would always be questions raised against such an obviously manipulative practice and I'll come to the details shortly. Now, the fact that most of the slaves believed in the fairness of the system is not new information by any means. What I want to talk about is the mechanism through which this belief was spread and maintained by the owners and some of the slaves themselves, for their selfish benefits.
Django Unchained is a work of art. It is a work of art, because of how it sends messages to the viewer without being too explicit about it. The message is a bit vague, yet clear enough to the intelligent audience and it is coherent enough - unlike the case with certain abstract works of 'modern art'. Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave to be sold to Di Caprio (don't remember his character's name). While travelling to Di Caprio's residence with other slaves, Django is unapologetically brazen and acts with a level of boldness which is not seen in typical slaves, in order to attract Di Caprio's interest. Di Caprio sees huge potential in Django particularly because of this: He potentially acts as an example of a black who is too 'free' for his own good and will re-inforce a sense of servitude among the other slaves. Django is expected in the future to make mistakes (according to the rules the slaves believe in/what Di Caprio has set) and these mistakes will be severely punished by Di Caprio, who will thus have justified his ill-treatment of slaves through the 'misbehaviour' of Django. In an ideal scenario, Django will slowly lose his enthusiasm and energy to be a rebel and eventually become a fully willing slave. The kindness that Di Caprio initially shows towards Django represents a fair chance that he gets before he is given the full-blown slave experience. If Django were an obedient slave who did everything as he was told to, Di Caprio would not have had even a bit of the interest that he was able to generate in himself through such behaviour. Another interesting slave is the guy who heads the slaves, played by Samuel L Jackson. This guy (let's just call him guy for now) is pretty old and clearly receives a treatment which is almost at par with the non-slaves, in terms of material benefits. However certain scenes show us the degree to which he feels 'owned' by Di Caprio. This guy serves several purposes (1) The fact that he is old and has been a slave for several decades shows that in order to earn respect, you need a large number of years of slave experience where you performed your duties without complaining or causing trouble (sounds eerily like the corporate system here) and (2) He fully believes in slavery and the inferiority of blacks himself and thus sets an example for the other slaves (3) By being a slave with the above desirable qualities, he is someone who gets a disproportionate amount of kindness from Di Caprio (even though he is still treated like shit). He thus represents a hope- a kind of role model for all the slaves to aspire for, while working hard for several years and being treated like animals while being given no pay.
Now, there are probably no scenarios exactly like the ones Django and the guy (and the rest of the nameless slaves) face, in the present day. Human rights violations are far lesser these days compared to a couple of hundred years ago. But while some things change more, some others don't change at all. We are humans after all and certain things like corruption and slavery cannot be erased from human beings very easily (it has to happen as a part of several hundred years of evolution, and it is something which I believe is still happening). In my opinion, sacrificing personal freedom to get substantial benefits that you otherwise would not is natural to how human beings react in a free-market economy. It isn't the happiest choice for us, but it is the one which will make us richest. It is lazy, but efficient in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. This isn't to say that slaves were completely willing, but to an extent I do believe that a large majority of people don't mind being slaves if it meant that they had a living. Managers (especially in jobs where the work is mundane, the quality of the output is not very relevant and thus employees are easily expendable) will function in similar ways as slavers. Average or below-average performing employees are tolerated as long as they accept the hierarchy in the firm and do not question the leadership's actions. High performers who think too independently are not thought of very highly and treated worse than the mediocre guy who passionately sucks up to the management, since these high performers represent a threat to the managers and to the status quo in general. In such a system, people who have the ability to do things independently yet make numerous mistakes and have the potential to be a willing slave, will be most valued by the manager. This is the Django of the team and will be punished and rewarded severely, with the severity depending on the supply of Djangos in the team as well as in the general job market. This Django may eithet be at the early stage(this is what Jamie Foxx tries to portray), middle stage (where he learns to go with the flow and take punishments and rewards as they come) or the fully developed stage (where he is more careful in his actions, believes blindly in the system and has probably become the guy!). The ideal team has a diverse mix of Djangos, one or two guy like slave leaders and a large number of below average performers who believe in the hierarchy- a belief which is reinforced by the Djangos and the guys. And in case you wish to point of that managers are different from owners, almost all managers in a firm in turn have managers and thus reflect the thoughts of the owners through lines of hierarchy, on the basis of the tone at the top.
A large number of office jobs qualify the conditions for the slavery comparison to be made. Also, I'm not entirely neutral on this topic. I do believe that a system where individuals are given full freedom will result in better economic benefits. Such a system would encourage original thought and creativity to a much larger extent than is considered acceptable in most places, presently. But there are pros and cons to everything including freedom and the slavers have a fair point when they disagree with me on the topic of allowing freedom. To borrow a bit of theory from modern Corporate Finance, 'shareholder value' is widely considered to be the best indicator of managers' and employees' performance and increasing shareholder value is seen as the purpose of all corporations (there are certain exceptions and nuances to this which I don't want to cover here). This is of course, equivalent to doing whatever it takes to make sure that the people who own your company get more money, in order to be a good employee. Sounds a bit inhuman but that's how it is. And, if you feel that you're not comfortable with this kind of a setup, there are four main options for you (1) Start a company which makes money/adds value without the slavery set-up (2) Work independently as a consultant/teacher/artist/architect or in fields where you can be hired to complete projects or tasks as an individual (3) Get into a job where the nature of the job demands that individuals have to have skills which make them relatively non-expendable (4) Start a company which mass produces goods/services and become the slaver yourself. If material benefits are the sole purpose to your life, option 4 is the no-brainer. But if you want a world which is happier and in the long-term, richer - you will look towards other options, closer to the first one.
Slavery is an interesting phenomenon. Well, for most part WAS an interesting phenomenon since slavery in the traditional sense is nearly non-existent now. But the spirit of slavery lives on in many things that we do on a day-to-day basis. The fact that many of us do (fairly monotonous) things on a 'day-to-day' basis to earn our living is itself one of the stronger manifestations of slavery in the modern day. We are slaves to routine, to consumer culture, to our friends and family, to our jobs. But how is that possible you ask? The definition of slavery can be broadened to include such things by defining it thus: 'Acting on the will of others to make a living for yourself'. Now, this definition does not talk about whether the slave gets wages/not or whether he enjoys being a slave. However, these are details which I believe depend on the situations. You might be naturally obediant/submissive person who listens to your parents/husband/wife/friends or you may not be. But if you act in such ways as to please other people and place other people's interests consistently above your own, you are a slave.
Traditionally, slaves were required to perform mundane tasks at a very large scale and generate disproportionate profits to the owners. They were unpaid and were not guaranteed any sort of human rights. I'm not as interested in the economics of slavery (valuing a him as a series of possible future cash-flows discounted for the behavioural and health risks that society believes slaves to have- risks which would impact the capacity and willingness of a slave to work) as much as the social aspects of slavery. They were expected to be quiet, hard-working and efficient at doing the tasks they were expected to do. But these aspects would characterise a large number of slaves and thus it would be difficult to stand out consistently for a slave who had only these characteristics. For, these are all attributes which can be sacrificed by an owner with deep enough pockets. A magic ingredient is the self-belief that a slave possesses that he is inferior to his owner and thus incapable of doing things that his owner can do and as a consequence, undeserving of all the pleasures that the owner enjoys. A homogenous belief in servitude is still not enough though to keep the slaves under them since there would always be questions raised against such an obviously manipulative practice and I'll come to the details shortly. Now, the fact that most of the slaves believed in the fairness of the system is not new information by any means. What I want to talk about is the mechanism through which this belief was spread and maintained by the owners and some of the slaves themselves, for their selfish benefits.
Django Unchained is a work of art. It is a work of art, because of how it sends messages to the viewer without being too explicit about it. The message is a bit vague, yet clear enough to the intelligent audience and it is coherent enough - unlike the case with certain abstract works of 'modern art'. Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave to be sold to Di Caprio (don't remember his character's name). While travelling to Di Caprio's residence with other slaves, Django is unapologetically brazen and acts with a level of boldness which is not seen in typical slaves, in order to attract Di Caprio's interest. Di Caprio sees huge potential in Django particularly because of this: He potentially acts as an example of a black who is too 'free' for his own good and will re-inforce a sense of servitude among the other slaves. Django is expected in the future to make mistakes (according to the rules the slaves believe in/what Di Caprio has set) and these mistakes will be severely punished by Di Caprio, who will thus have justified his ill-treatment of slaves through the 'misbehaviour' of Django. In an ideal scenario, Django will slowly lose his enthusiasm and energy to be a rebel and eventually become a fully willing slave. The kindness that Di Caprio initially shows towards Django represents a fair chance that he gets before he is given the full-blown slave experience. If Django were an obedient slave who did everything as he was told to, Di Caprio would not have had even a bit of the interest that he was able to generate in himself through such behaviour. Another interesting slave is the guy who heads the slaves, played by Samuel L Jackson. This guy (let's just call him guy for now) is pretty old and clearly receives a treatment which is almost at par with the non-slaves, in terms of material benefits. However certain scenes show us the degree to which he feels 'owned' by Di Caprio. This guy serves several purposes (1) The fact that he is old and has been a slave for several decades shows that in order to earn respect, you need a large number of years of slave experience where you performed your duties without complaining or causing trouble (sounds eerily like the corporate system here) and (2) He fully believes in slavery and the inferiority of blacks himself and thus sets an example for the other slaves (3) By being a slave with the above desirable qualities, he is someone who gets a disproportionate amount of kindness from Di Caprio (even though he is still treated like shit). He thus represents a hope- a kind of role model for all the slaves to aspire for, while working hard for several years and being treated like animals while being given no pay.
Now, there are probably no scenarios exactly like the ones Django and the guy (and the rest of the nameless slaves) face, in the present day. Human rights violations are far lesser these days compared to a couple of hundred years ago. But while some things change more, some others don't change at all. We are humans after all and certain things like corruption and slavery cannot be erased from human beings very easily (it has to happen as a part of several hundred years of evolution, and it is something which I believe is still happening). In my opinion, sacrificing personal freedom to get substantial benefits that you otherwise would not is natural to how human beings react in a free-market economy. It isn't the happiest choice for us, but it is the one which will make us richest. It is lazy, but efficient in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. This isn't to say that slaves were completely willing, but to an extent I do believe that a large majority of people don't mind being slaves if it meant that they had a living. Managers (especially in jobs where the work is mundane, the quality of the output is not very relevant and thus employees are easily expendable) will function in similar ways as slavers. Average or below-average performing employees are tolerated as long as they accept the hierarchy in the firm and do not question the leadership's actions. High performers who think too independently are not thought of very highly and treated worse than the mediocre guy who passionately sucks up to the management, since these high performers represent a threat to the managers and to the status quo in general. In such a system, people who have the ability to do things independently yet make numerous mistakes and have the potential to be a willing slave, will be most valued by the manager. This is the Django of the team and will be punished and rewarded severely, with the severity depending on the supply of Djangos in the team as well as in the general job market. This Django may eithet be at the early stage(this is what Jamie Foxx tries to portray), middle stage (where he learns to go with the flow and take punishments and rewards as they come) or the fully developed stage (where he is more careful in his actions, believes blindly in the system and has probably become the guy!). The ideal team has a diverse mix of Djangos, one or two guy like slave leaders and a large number of below average performers who believe in the hierarchy- a belief which is reinforced by the Djangos and the guys. And in case you wish to point of that managers are different from owners, almost all managers in a firm in turn have managers and thus reflect the thoughts of the owners through lines of hierarchy, on the basis of the tone at the top.
A large number of office jobs qualify the conditions for the slavery comparison to be made. Also, I'm not entirely neutral on this topic. I do believe that a system where individuals are given full freedom will result in better economic benefits. Such a system would encourage original thought and creativity to a much larger extent than is considered acceptable in most places, presently. But there are pros and cons to everything including freedom and the slavers have a fair point when they disagree with me on the topic of allowing freedom. To borrow a bit of theory from modern Corporate Finance, 'shareholder value' is widely considered to be the best indicator of managers' and employees' performance and increasing shareholder value is seen as the purpose of all corporations (there are certain exceptions and nuances to this which I don't want to cover here). This is of course, equivalent to doing whatever it takes to make sure that the people who own your company get more money, in order to be a good employee. Sounds a bit inhuman but that's how it is. And, if you feel that you're not comfortable with this kind of a setup, there are four main options for you (1) Start a company which makes money/adds value without the slavery set-up (2) Work independently as a consultant/teacher/artist/architect or in fields where you can be hired to complete projects or tasks as an individual (3) Get into a job where the nature of the job demands that individuals have to have skills which make them relatively non-expendable (4) Start a company which mass produces goods/services and become the slaver yourself. If material benefits are the sole purpose to your life, option 4 is the no-brainer. But if you want a world which is happier and in the long-term, richer - you will look towards other options, closer to the first one.
