A Critical Review of an Article Found in the Journal: The Futurist, by Douglas Rushkoff Entitled Life Dollars: Finding Currency

in Community

By: Damian Niolet

The views expressed in this paper belong solely to the author and do not reflect the views of the USAF.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

INTRODUCTION During a discussion (which occurred in a college class, in which I am enrolled, BSI 401 Globalization), regarding the various national economic systems and how they comprise the global economic system, I became intrigued by the possibility of an economic system existing on the national level wherein there is no hard currency. At first the only alternative system that I could foresee as a replacement to a monetary system was one based on bartering, but I had the strong sense that such a system was not likely to be able to accommodate the vast amount of trade that goes on in any given modern nation, let alone between modern nations. All the same, I still had a gut feeling that there was some system out there that could adequately substitute our current system; I simply could not begin to fathom the details that made the system tick. Then, completely by happenstance, I came across an article, which deals specifically with this topic, by Douglass Rushkoff in the Journal: The Futurist. In the article (which is based off a much bigger book Rushkoff also wrote called Life Inc.), itself entitled: Life Dollars: Finding Currency in Community, Rushkoff explains briefly how (in my own words), there is a prevailing sense within humanity that we are all chained to corporations, or to a mindset of corporatism; money acting as the chains. Rather than feel as though we are enslaved, we feel as though it is a natural state of affairs, and little is done to break free. Even when the financial markets are crashing, we simply hang on for the ride. If there is any reaction to this system, it is simply casting of blame towards the corporations perpetuating this system and/or the system itself. Thereafter, Rushkoff expounds on alternatives to the system. He explains that there exist a growing number of grass root initiatives to cut out the

middleman, the corporation and money, and deal with each other directly. In the end he seems pretty confident that these alternatives are the way to go. In this paper I will conduct a critical review of the article and surmise whether Rushkoff makes a strong case for these unconventional systems of exchange, and whether they truly are viable as national economic systems. To do this, I will be using an analytic method presented by Drs. Richard Paul and Linda Elder, known as the Elements of Thought. Through this method, I will examine Rushoffs authority on the topic, his purpose in writing the article, his main point of view, his key questions and how well he answered them, his evidence and its substantiality, what inferences he draws, his underlining concepts, his assumptions, if any, and the implications surrounding his view. Within each of these areas I will assess certain criteria, which is necessary for any argument to be considered sound in judgment and worthy of consideration. The criteria are: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Here is an excerpt of Douglas Rushkoffs Biography taken from his own homepage rushkoff.com:
Rushkoff graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University, received an MFA in Directing from California Institute of the Arts, a post-graduate fellowship (MFA) from The American Film Institute, and a Directors Grant from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Hes finishing his

dissertation on media literacy and gaming for University Utrecht. Tellingly, the man is certainly well educated. Apart from the education he has received from academia, he has also acquired a great deal of education and life experience from his endeavors and accomplishments, having written 9 non-fiction books, 2 fiction books, 2 graphic novels, and

directed 4 documentaries, not to mention the countless articles he has written, and interviews and speeches he has given. Beyond his career output, he has or currently does serve as an advisor, chairman, or board member for numerous organizations, to include: the United Nations Commission on World Culture, media non-profits and companies, museums, governments, synagogues, churches, universities, and even Fortune 500 companies. After reading Rushkoffs credentials, one can most certainly suggest that he has the background to be able to speak authoritatively regarding the corporate world. However, as described in the summary above, there is a psychological angle to the topic corporatism and the human response, of which this paper is concerned. Does Rushkoff have the expertise to be able to speak convincingly on this aspect? Not necessarily. Rushkoff does not possess an education in the field of psychology and/or human behavior on a level equal to his education in media studies; however, as explained, the time he has spent building his career has definitely afforded him learning opportunities, specifically placing him before windows peering into the areas of psychology and human behavior, and he is likely to be able to speak on these matters at a level much higher than the average individual. To be clear, his homepage points out that his focus, in researching and teaching, is the ways people, cultures, and institutions create, share, and influence each others values. Values being intimately tied to psychology and human behavior, we can say that he can speak authoritatively, by proxy. AUTHORS PURPOSE Rushkoff does not forthrightly state his purpose for writing the article; it must be surmised. Based on the tone of the first few paragraphs, which comprise the introduction, the article reads like a self-help book. He is basically crying out to people, telling us that we should be crying out and what we should be crying out about. He explains the seeming hopelessness of

the situation, but then presents us with the golden key, or rather, just a hint of what the golden key looks like. We have to read the rest to really be able to take hold of the key. So it would seem that his purpose is to enlighten us, genuinely concerned, he wants to enrich us by revealing ways in which we can enrich ourselves. However, by the end of the article, it becomes apparent that Rushkoffs purpose in writing the article may have had more to do with a marketing ploy (which ironically, in his opinion, is a branch of the very thing we should turn away from); in that, there does not seem to be enough information in the article to satisfy the reader. Readers are not likely to feel enriched after reading the article; instead, they are likely to feel quite the opposite, a longing for more, which can only be satisfied by buying the book. But, to be fair, his purpose may not be entirely hypocritical; the purpose requires more examination. In the body of the article Rushkoff provides information that tells us what the key to unlocking our hopeless corporatism looks like, what doors it opens, and what life would be like on the other side. He explains that there are a number of growing trends, some of which he has personally been a part of, involving cutting out the corporate middleman and dealing with each other directly, drawing on each others strengths, skills, willingness and trust, and conducting business as in days of old. One example is how a friend of his designed a website for a farm and in return was given crops for a year. No hard currency, or even virtual currency, was involved at all. He goes on to cite several other examples of ways that we, as interpersonal beings, can dispense of corporatism. While he does cite several examples, the information provided is not enough. He tells us all about the key, the doors, the other side, but not how to get the key, how to unlock the door, etc. This will be addressed again later in detail. This is the point at which one has to wonder if

Rushkoffs purpose in writing the article was not to entice people to buy his book, Life Inc., on which the article is based, a deed which would be pretty dastardly considering the advice being given, unless his aim is not financially driven. Perhaps he did write the article so that people would be enticed to buy his book, but theres no reason why he could not have done so for the sole benefit of our personal enrichment, rather than for his own financial profit. I say this for two reasons, 1) Rushkoff is a very big proponent of the open source movement. He believes in free access to the end product, no matter what that product is. If one peruses his homepage, one would find much of the material in his books readily accessible. I am sure that if he had the means to print the books himself, he would sell them at a nominal cost to people. As it stands, a publisher had to print the books and a publisher has to collect as it deems appropriate. Rushkoff does understand the need at times for the corporation. 2) The Futurist is not a large journal and it is formatted more like a magazine than a journal, with large spaces intended for advertising and only so much room for articles. Rushkoff did not have the space to be able to write a complete synopsis of the book containing all the pertinent points. He could only provide enough to entice people to buy the book and learn more. Ultimately, I would say that his purpose in writing the article was altruistic. I think he did himself a disservice by not addressing his purpose outright or emphasizing that while he does hope people attempt to learn more about the topic and go out and get the book, they do not necessarily have to buy it; they could barter it off a friend. The suggestion would lend itself to his point, but the publisher might have had a problem with this tact.

AUTHORS MAIN POINT OF VIEW

Rushkoffs main point in the article is that we have grown accustomed to a mindset of corporatism, which has separated us from each other, coerced us into believing there is more value in consumerism than interaction, and demanded that we be selfish. One can see this through the example he gives regarding yard landscaping. Rather than someone avoiding their neighbor because they are upset with how much their neighbors landscaping is bringing down home values on the block, that person could instead actually know the neighbors name and value him/her for the connections they could share. Or one might see Rushkoffs point in phrases like, . . . corporatism . . . a logic we have internalized into our very being . . . . . . widespread obsession with financial value over values of any other sort . . . . . . reinforce their sense of hope and connection to others. KEY QUESTIONS The primary question that Rushkoff is indirectly asking is, In what specific ways can we disengage ourselves from the mindset of corporatism and begin to regain our humanity? There are some other questions that should be asked, but are not asked, directly nor indirectly, because they are tied to assumptions that are made by Rushkoff. When assuming something, one does not necessarily think to address that something because it is assumed. I will address these assumptions farther down in this paper. SUPPORT/EVIDENCE Rushkoff, in selling the idea of finding ways to conduct more local, interpersonal business exchanges, thus shedding the skin of corporatism, presents three example methods, and cites particular occurrences within these 3 examples. Rushkoffs overall suggestion is of the type that, if one were trying to persuade others of its effectiveness, requires the presentation of

practical and actual application. Rushkoff was doing just that by citing specific occurrences, providing facts and figures, and proclaiming the business results. But its not the business related details of the occurrences and their results that are of utmost importance; it is the human aspect of the occurrences and results that are important because that is the information that answers the key question. Rushkoff does not provide extensive information regarding the result of the occurrences cited from a human behavior perspective. He does not say how individuals felt after the business interactions, whether they had achieved divorcing corporatism or not, as he suggests would happen. The reason he does not do this is because he assumes that the results are apparent. Again, I will address assumptions such as this one later in the paper. INFERENCES Rushkoff promotes the need to look for alternative business practices at all times, believing that it would be for the betterment of our well-being as social creatures. But, Rushkoff infers that during times of recession, people are more turned on to the concept. He cites a recent increase in bartering on the website craigslist.org in New York after the bankruptcy of a number of Wall Street firms. The further inference is that not just corporatism, but capitalism will fail us, eventually entirely, and we will be required to fall back on alternative forms of business exchange.

CONCEPTS At the forefront of this article is the concept that the corporate world and its associated mentality have been ingrained in us. But at the heart of the article is a less directly stated

concept. I made my first mention of the concept in the last sentence of the above paragraph. Rushkoff may have intentionally beaten around the bush in addressing this concept because articulating it in a published journal is almost paramount to an attack on the US. Rushkoff isnt just attacking corporatism; hes attacking capitalism. After all, where does corporatism come from? Leading up to the last paragraph of the article, Rushkoff hurls his last barrage of cannon fire at corporatism, but he only says the word corporatism once. As Rushkoff begins his last paragraph, readers have to assume he is speaking of corporatism when he says, This monolithic approach to society and its recovery is antisocial in intent, dehumanizing in effect, and, dare I say it, fascist in spirit. Or is he speaking of that other ism, capitalism? I would contend its the latter. ASSUMPTIONS There were several assumptions that were made during the writing of this article. In my opinion it is these assumptions that hold the article back from being truly brilliant. As it is now, the article is merely intriguing, but intriguing enough to make most people want to find the book it is based on. And that may be precisely why the assumptions were made in the first place. As I stated above, Rushkoff, knowing he would only have so much space to fill with this brilliant concept could only source the most intriguing concepts from the book in hopes that interested parties would search out the book for more information. But, notice I said may. It may actually be that he was under the spell of a cognitive bias. The major assumption is that the case against corporatism is even true. Do people in general really fell that their lives have been overtaken by the corporate mindset? Rushkoff takes it for granted that they do, and does not present any statistically data on the overall matter.

Another big assumption is that, once avoidance of corporatism is less a trend and more of a standard practice, national governments will not see this as a threat to the nations economy and will not do anything to hinder growth. By promoting avoidance, requesting and gaining support for these initiatives, Rushkoff may actually be pushing the concept to an early grave. The smaller they are, the more under the radar they are. Another assumption is that the people involved in the exchanges cited benefited in the way that Rushkoff is describing they should. The individuals should have felt a sense of connection with whom they conducted business and a sense of having circumvented the corporate mentality, contributing to their overall well-being. Likewise, it is assumed that there are no grievances between the individuals once business has been completed, that all is fair and acceptable to both parties. This may not have been the case, and it certainly would not be the case when more people get onboard with the idea. As I said above, in the Authors Purpose section, readers are left a bit bewildered. Rushkoff provides them with all of this great and practical information, but no specific information on how to go about the process themselves. He assumes that people will just be able to figure it out themselves, or know where to look. The organizations of which he speaks in the article do not have an aggressive marketing campaign, and if what Rushkoff is saying from the outset is true, then people arent likely to come across these organizations anytime soon. The fact that he wrote an article in a journal is likely not to contribute that much in the way of new recruits, since the journal is somewhat obscure. Considering the second assumption, this may have been precisely intended. IMPLICATIONS

The following are Rushkoffs exact words concerning what the implications are if we continue to live a life fused to corporatism, We will either arrest corporatism, or it will arrest us. What he means by that exactly, I cannot say, but anyone would see such a phrase as an omen, portending negative implications. Likely, if Rushkoff were to expound on the negative implications, he would assert that individuals who never break free of corporatisms grasp are destined to live less fulfilled lives, having placed value in assets rather than relationships. Again, this can only be true if people really are unwitting fools to corporate brainwashing and really would be better off without the mindset. Since this article follows a basic formula, one in which a problem is presented and explained, and then solutions suggested, the positive implications should be a reversal of the problem initially stated. The positive implications are succinctly stated as follows: . . .by restoring our connections to real people, places, and values, well be less likely to depend on the symbols and brands that have come to substitute for human relationships. This does coincide with a reversal of the problem Rushkoff originally laid down in the articles introduction. THE CRITERIA I will no assess the overall article in terms of the criteria I mentioned in the introduction. First, the article lacks clarity since 1) the purpose for the article is not clearly stated 2) many assumptions are made 3) the examples cited do not fully answer the key question. Second, since a huge assumption (that corporatism is a problem), is made from the outset, the article may or may not be entirely accurate. If the assumption proved accurate, then the article would gain a bit of accuracy. However, Rushkoff did not accurately detail the evidence presented against corporatism; there was no human factor in the results. So, the accuracy of the article would still be lacking.

Third, the article is not precise since it provides only a cursory understanding of the problem and possible solutions. No precise details are given in the way of statistics, step-by-step process, etc. Fourth, the article is somewhat relevant in that it points interested individuals in the direction of answers, but does not give any definitive answers itself. Fifth, there is no depth in the article, as stated above, since this was only a cursory look at the issue and no detailed studies were conducted. Sixth, Rushkoff did not stop to look at the problem from another perspective, did not stop to play devils advocate. Either because he did not have the space to be able to do so, or he was making an assumption that prevented him from considering alternatives. Seventh, in and of itself, if one doesnt stop to consider the assumptions being made, the article seems logical, but any true understanding of the problem and solutions requires more thorough research, which is not provided in the article. Eighth, the article did come out at an appropriate time considering the subject. The recession had not yet been declared finished. Readers were likely compelled to read the article since it concerned alternative business approaches, which are always noticed in times of recession. Ninth, Rushkoff made some dubious assumptions, but this is not necessarily a misgiving. More than anything it points to his altruism. He sensed a frustration in humanity, made an assumption as to what was causing it and is tried to offer a solution. But the article could not do justice to such a complex matter. CONCLUSION I have completed my review of Douglas Rushkoffs article, Life Dollars: Finding Currency in Community. Overall I would say that the article was affective in presenting a new concept to readers. However, it was not entirely affective in selling that concept. That does not

mean that people would immediately disregard the matter. The article was effective in providing just enough info to intrigue readers and get them started on a quest to learn more, a quest that would likely begin with purchasing Rushkoffs book, Life, Inc. I personally will be purchasing this book and seeing if many of the deficiencies found in the article by this author are shored up in the full length version. Then, perhaps I will be able to fill in the gaps of understanding that I have surrounding this, though growing, nebulas concept of corporate free, interpersonal business exchange.