Analyze

Kauri burl-as-tumor

tschuetz
Annotation of
In response to

Upon entering the Formosa Plastics Group Museum in Taoyuan, Taiwan, the first thing that visitors see is a large piece of wood, kept under a dome of glass. The label at the bottom reads:

This magnificent piece of New Zealand Kauri burl had been buried in the ground for more than fifty thousand years before being unearthed. The timber is a rare hard resin-filled solid wood. This beautifully-shaped burl weighs 8.5 tons, well over the the 6 ton piece held by the British Museum in London, making it unique in the world. In 2002, Chairman Wang Yung-ching came across the Kauri burl in Kaohsiung and was drawn to its strength so much that he decided to make this Kauri burl the centerpiece of his collection. This remarkable piece of wood on display here at the entrance to the museum symbolizes the vitality of the Formosa Plastics Group capable of immeasurable possibilities. and longevity.

I later learned that a burl is considered a tree's natural response to "some form of stress such as an injury or a viral or fungal infection" (Wikipedia). I also looked up the Mandarin translation for burl, which is 瘤 (liú). This term can mean hump, knurl, lump, nubble, or tumor. The latter invokes environmental and health impacts, such as high cancer rates in petrochemical fenceline communities. However, these issues are not addressed in the museum. Instead, the piece of wood is paired with an all-plastic recreation of a New Zealand rainforest in the museum's B1 gift shop. This recreation includes chirping bird sound effects, leaving visitors with a greenwashed first and last impression.

However, one way to capture the ambivalent meaning of the object at the center of the museum is through Kim Fortun's (2019) reflection on "toxic vitalism," a term that describes "the way systems can take on a life of their own, often beyond what experts planned or expected.

theatresofvirtue5

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

Enforcing consensus: Credibility and viability to compete for funding of your NGO is gone if you protest or dissent → performed consensus by silencing “stone throwing” NGOs or irrational opposition because you’re “actually trying to do something”, so the new unethical is the NGO who is just being stubborn or petty; 

Creating ads to educate consumers or communities on how to live responsibly [responsibilization]: flow of ethical expertise, from business/govt thru media to community/consumer 

Awards for CSR accomplishment is like moral capital; it also is ritualized like gift giving, reciprocal gratitude; circuit of exclusive events generates and legitimates this discourse, celebrity speakers, positive vibes

Confession of past sins plus highly visible partnerships with well-known NGOs, a very branded activity

 

theatresofvirtue4

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

To the extent that corporations genuinely believe that market access is going to end poverty... They seem to genuinely believe that the “third world” governments are corrupt and incompetent, in the way like in Orientalism colonialists seemed to genuinely believe that they were saving the nonwhite people from themselves. And they genuinely believe their resources are better and greater and their distribution networks etc. are better. 

NGOs have their back against the wall - they have to silently accept the language of the corporations and do it their way because they depend on the corporations for funding. So they may not see it as helpful but have to participate anyway

 

theatresofvirtue3

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

Redefined: New unethical is the NGO who doesn’t support CSR - they are bitter, unprogressive. Legitimate action - ethical - “partnership with business for the common cause”; Illegitimate action - unethical - “misguided, anti corporate campaigning” p17

Proof of the ethical is in rigorously calculated indices of corporate responsibility and awards presented by orgs that supposedly represent civil society

Money funneled thru well-known NGOs who have to do what they say

 

theatresofvirtue2

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

blame/displacement of scrutiny onto “Southern” i.e. previously colonized governments; pretty blatant language of colonialism (needing to save people from their own corrupt and incompetent governments) cast as “good governance” that corporations can do to lift people out of poverty with market access/inclusion

“Market comes to stand for social system as a whole” -p12

 

theatresofvirtue1

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

Business-led development becomes development orthodoxy

Reconfigured to appear as a double market competition - corporations competing for awards/ moral capital with their CSR actions, and NGOs as enterprises competing for corporate money to execute social good programs (but of course here the power is with corps to drive what is a social good program)

Public-private partnerships, defining development as market access, making it about scrutiny of “3rd world” government incompetence instead of corporate irresponsibility