It's A Sick Society That Sees Frugality As A Threat, But Not Social Inequality

When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I was a lot more left-leaning than I am now. This was true even when I was at the capitalist bastion of B-school.

I could not bring myself to take a single elective in Marketing because I believed it was an evil profession. My classmates tried to assure me that Marketing only performed the benign function of determining people's needs and ensuring that they were met. I was convinced it was all about determining people's insecurities and exploiting them to create demand, which could then be satisfied by producing goods and services at the highest price the newly-created market would bear. I also detested the definition of "market" as including only those who could afford to pay.

Wants or needs? And can everyone afford what they want?
("The Toy Shop Window" by Timoleon Marie Lobrichon)

I often dreamt of a world where people would go to a shop and see plainly-packaged products labelled simply "soap", "toothpaste", etc. My observations were deemed amusing. My B-school classmates went on, almost without exception, to become captains of industry. I too followed, just at a more modest level in the corporate hierarchy. We all benefited from the existing world order.

Today, we're hearing it reported, entirely without irony, that the world is in danger of going into a deep recession because people are only buying essentials!

If that isn't an indictment of our society, I don't know what is. It's a bad thing when people only buy what they need? This is as jaw-dropping as banks classifying people who pay off their credit card outstandings in time as "bad customers" (true story).

We've been selling ourselves the narrative that growth at all costs is necessary for prosperity, and so staying out of recession is in itself a virtue. We've completely ignored increasing inequality as long as growth has continued in terms of aggregate numbers.

Now, elites hopefully understand that inequality threatens them too. The fact that Boris Johnson, who is as elite as they come, could find himself close to death, has no doubt shocked the entire cohort at the top of the pyramid. (At a human level, I'm glad he's out of danger now, but maybe it was a good thing someone from the elite did go through a scare in a high-profile manner.)

When we rebuild society after this pandemic (and there will be pandemics in future too, so going back to the way things were is not an option), we should pursue growth in a more equal fashion. Do what the profession of Marketing professes to do - determine the needs of *all* people (and satisfy them), not just the wants of those who can afford to pay for things. Better yet, ensure that everyone *can* afford to pay for the things they need. Then we can still have a multi-trillion dollar world economy, but not one that produces non-essentials for anyone who can afford to pay, but essentials for everyone.

If you don't like the word Socialism, let's call it something else. Rebranding is a capitalist skill, after all.

Henry Lawson's "The Drover's Wife" As An Allegory For The Female Condition

One of my Aussie friends pointed me to a classic short story by the Australian poet and writer Henry Lawson, called "The Drover's Wife". (Click on the link to read it now.)

Read superficially, this short story is a recounting of a few dramatic hours in the life of a woman living alone with her children in the Australian outback. A venomous snake appears, and then ominously disappears under the floorboards of the rough house. The vigil she mounts against the threat of the snake's reappearance, aided only by her dog, occupies the bulk of the story, together with some reflective passages that recount some of the other struggles she has faced alone. Her husband is a "drover", a stockman who drives livestock over long distances, and is consequently away for months at a time. Her children are all very young and require her protection rather than being of help to her.

"The Drover's Wife", immortalised in an Australian postage stamp

However, the story is much more than just an evening in the woman's life. It is an allegory for the female condition, and it is as valid today as it was in the 19th century when it was written. I believe it's a feminist text that should form part of any Women's Studies program. It appears from Henry Lawson's biography that his mother's own struggles as a single parent (his father being a miner and away from home for long periods) sensitised him to a woman's struggles and enabled him to write about them so insightfully.

As an allegory, the story actually deals with the specific issue of women's physical safety, and there are five main players:

1. The woman herself, who has to be alert, cool-headed and courageous at all times.

2. The men in her life, whom she cannot rely upon to protect her. The men here are either absent (her husband) or incapable (her young sons).

3. Society as a whole, which enables her to survive when things are otherwise going well, but is not of much use in a situation of immediate threat. The barter she has with her brother-in-law's family is an allegory for the social contract between a family and society.

4. The snake, a classic phallic symbol which here represents the predatory male, the ever-present threat to a woman's physical safety. She has no way of telling when the threat will appear. When it does, she cannot let her guard down for a moment, and has to stay calm and collected to deal with it.

These two passages describe that constant, chilling menace.

Occasionally a bushman in the horrors, or a villainous-looking sundowner, comes and nearly scares the life out of her. She generally tells the suspicious-looking stranger that her husband and two sons are at work below the dam, or over at the yard, for he always cunningly inquires for the boss.

Only last week a gallows-faced swagman — having satisfied himself that there were no men on the place — threw his swag down on the veranda, and demanded tucker (food). She gave him something to eat; then he expressed his intention of staying for the night. It was sundown then. She got a batten from the sofa, loosened the dog, and confronted the stranger, holding the batten in one hand and the dog’s collar with the other. “Now you go!” she said. He looked at her and at the dog, said “All right, mum,” in a cringing tone, and left. She was a determined-looking woman, and Alligator’s yellow eyes glared unpleasantly — besides, the dog’s chawing-up apparatus greatly resembled that of the reptile he was named after.

5. The dog, the one entity that can protect her with its sharp teeth. The dog represents the Law. That's the only thing feared by the predatory male.

The moral of the story is that women cannot rely on the protection of friendly males, or on other families in civil society. Women are partly responsible for their own safety, in that they must remain alert about potential danger, and must also be level-headed and courageous. They also need to work with sympathetic law enforcement machinery to ensure their safety.

At the very end of the story, after the snake is killed and consigned to the flames, the release of tension makes it possible for other, repressed emotions to come rushing back. The woman's eldest son, an "urchin of eleven", declares,

Mother, I won’t never go drovin’; blarst me if I do!

I believe that was the author's own voice, expressing anguish at the struggles to which his own mother had been abandoned.