The liminal 'Death' of the Corporation - Does it exist?

In my second post relating the concept of liminality to that of the corporate culture - I will start at the beginning of the liminal process: understanding whether or not corporations are going through the metaphorical change, or death, that is necessary to jump-start a new period of redefinition.

I found myself thinking of this in the aftereffects of Hurricane Sandy - which for many people in NY and NJ especially will find them in a real state of liminality much more real and have more real-life impact than any discourse that may be posted on this blog or other sites.  But that very question of an event that launches a community into a state of liminality is exactly, in my observation, what is missing to truly support the foundation that corporations are in a state of liminality.

For example, one could point as the advent of the internet as one of the factors that led to the state of liminality in which corporations are attempting to redefine themselves.  However, the impact of the internet has been one of gradual accumulation - taking place over years (over twenty to be  more specific).  Or perhaps was it the invention of Facebook and Twitter that enabled this change?   Well, yes both of those social networking tools have changed how organizations respond to their stakeholders (shareholders, workers, the public writ large).

Liminality theorists also bring up the idea of a group being in a constant state of liminality, such as Karl Jaspers' theory of axial ages, or Turner's thought that liminality can become fixed.  Both of these theories suppose that the community still follows the normal stages of the liminal process - and ends with some type of 'new world order.'

My proposition is thus:  what if there is no new world order?  What if the constant state of change and adaptation to consistent forms of communication (and thus a response) is a neo-liminal state, constantly in a state of upheaval, jumping from one messianic figure to the next - with tricksters popping up and disappearing all over the place?  The 24-hour news-cycle promoted by the media (and its subsequent impact on our culture and how we process and exchange information) can be a ripe example for further study of liminality.  It seems that the media jumps from one real or imagined crisis to the next, trying to be the messianic figure (leading its audiences to the Truth), while there are tricksters in the form of bloggers, conspiracy theorists, or even talk radio hosts who try to lead people in a different direction.

Would this lack of a new world order be, in and of itself a new world order according to the theories of liminality?   If so, who would guide?  I find this all fascinating and wonder if the answer to this line of questioning would help us better understand the impact of media saturation in the modern American corporate life.  How would corporate organizations take advantage of, or attempt to control the discourse to make the most of short-term profits?  One can only see how this all starts to get the wheels turning...

Liminality: the state of corporate (in)decision

Last night I was walking home from Chinese class.  It had been an odd couple of hours.  An alleged bomb threat had shut down all the buildings near my school, including the school building itself.  Although the 'all clear' was called, the staff had, nonetheless, left for the evening with a note on the doors indicating all classes were cancelled.  Not to be dismayed, my class of eager students (all six of us that showed up) ended up having a shortened class in a lounge in one of the nearby buildings.  It was not a normal evening.

As I walked home - a thick fog had descended upon the city.  The buildings where I lived were shrouded in a soft blanket - the city's hard edges looking like they had been gently rubbed away.  The light the buildings gave off gave the area a warm glow - much like that which occurs in the middle of a snowstorm.  Near my house there was a construction site, eerily quiet- with the white coverings from the windows flapping in the slight breeze - casting a ghostly look upon what during the day is a bustling site of economic progress.  It all seemed so surreal...

And that had me reflecting that evening on the state at which I think we find the corporate world in general today.  There is such rapid change going on that the precepts which have heretofore guided the decision-making of your colleagues seems to not hold up to the scrutiny and pressure facing many CEOs today.  For one, new pressures from non-Western markets change the amount and type of skin the game.  It is no longer just a matter of profits, but also a sense in many organizations of social responsibility.  Corporations are entering into a territory of liminality - and one can already see it occurring.

It is no surprise that the advent of social media has literally changed the world - with everything from corporations bowing under consumer pressure, to entire governments collapsing due to pressure from the people.  But when you examine the world of corporations this holds even more sway.  The one benefit of the 2008 financial crisis was that it wakened the public up to an entire secondary means of governance - that of the impact of corporate money and support on the public affairs of our governments.  All of a sudden  people cared about how much a CEO made, all of a sudden they saw the inconsistencies in social welfare.  When even warren buffet proclaims that a system of payment and 'rewards' is out of whack - then you know that the times are changing.

I was partly realized the impact of what this liminal state brings last night as I watched the "Half the Sky" documentary on PBS.  While I do read Nick Kristof, I do not always agree with his methods of raising awareness.  I think he pulls at the heartstrings of the 'other' and the 'foreign' and somehow latches onto that fascination that most Westerners have with the lifestyles long since forgotten in our world.  Nonetheless, what I appreciated about both his book and the documentary was the amount of attention int brought to serious issues around the world - and what a wide audience it has gathered.  I don't doubt that the organizations featured in the program will se ea wellspring of support from donors in the West - and no doubt an increase in awareness on the impact of our own actions, or rather inaction, on the lives of people thousands of miles away.

So why liminality and what do corporations have to do with this all?  There has been a trend recently, also with the advent of social media, to encourage the innovators of our world. Corporations are all seeking the next Steve Jobs, and are putting immense resources into encouraging innovative thinkers in their organizations - and the result is the very fabric of how corporations are structured is breaking down.  Take a simple example; the increase of Telework policies.  It is now a given fact that with the advent of mobile technology people do not have to be physically present in the same space every day to complete work (even education is feeling the brunt of this policy - but that is for another post).  The result is a workforce that now expects entirely different things from their employees - and it is changing the very dynamic of what it means to be a worker in a corporation.  A recent study by Deloitte actually examines this trend - and the greater impact it has on talent competitiveness in the overall American workforce.  And while I do not agree with all the conclusions of the authors as per the then relevant impact on higher education and vocational training - the very conclusion that the way the corporations do business is rapidly changing should raise eyebrows.

I was actually introduced to the concept of liminality in my first college lecture post 9/11.  I was a freshman, and my Anthropology 101 teacher, Dr. Andrew Shryock, explained the state we were all in in terms of liminality.  The new collective sense we had as Americans, the yearning for a leader figurehead - the presence of tricksters and those who want to take advantage of the situation for personal gain.  These are all present now.  Corporations as a whole are finding themselves in an unknown territory - and they are all equal in that grey fog.  While money continues to be the sacred object for which they all yearn, they recognize that the individual sacredness of profit is not dependent upon myriads of other factors that they really did not consider - for instance how instability in geographic locations can impact the supply line of goods that help to make a product.  And they yearn for leadership - a figure - the next Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet or any great leader to move them forward.

What this liminal state will look like is anyone's guess - but I think it is an incredibly exciting thing to watch.  In subsequent posts, I intend to look at the various aspects of liminality in more detail, so that we can better understand the changes in the world around us - and start, perhaps, to find our way out of the fog.

Movie Review of 和你在一起 (Together)

To those who read this blog, it may come as a surprise that I am presently enrolled in Chinese language classes.  Although I often write about Tibet, and experiences there, I believe that in order to understand a situation completely, one must be able to fully observe the opinions and lives of all those involved in any given situation.  Thus, in my scholastic examination of the impact of tourism in Tibet I should be able to examine and observe both the Tibetan and the Chinese points-of-view vis-a-vis the cultural implications of increasing tourism in the TAR.

Any scholar of Asian tourism can tell you one thing, and that is the opening up of travel restrictions in the Chinese mainland has opened the world to the largest population of tourists: the Chinese.  Even if China should, for some reason, close its borders, there can be a fully-functioning and supportive tourist culture within its own borders.  Thus, in order to best understand those population dynamics, and the implications, I have decided that it is imperative that I understand the Han dialect.  I also have been always intrigued and fascinated by the Chinese culture, and given its rise as an economic power, believe that there is no foolishness in better understanding the language.  I also intend to continue my studies of Tibetan, but with the little bit of language I took I found it infinitely more difficult than Mandarin!  So I am also starting with what I believe to be the simpler of the two just to get back in the practice of studying a language.  I digress...

As part of my language course, my professor has asked us to watch and also review the movie "和你在一起 (Together)."  It is, to begin, an incredibly heartwarming, coming of age story that details the relationship between a father, Liu Cheng, and his son, Liu Xiaochun.   Liu Xiaochun is a gifted violin prodigy, who is selected for a chance to win a scholarship to study his art in Beijing.  The two set out to the city, where Liu Xiaochun performs brilliantly.  However, due to his background (i.e. lack of bribe money) he is not offered the scholarship.  Nevertheless, Liu Cheng convinces a professor at the Conservatory, Jiang Laoshi, to accept his son as a student.   The remainder of the movie follows the father and son as they realize the reality of living in a large city where, despite the belief of the world that all have equal access to life's successes, being from the country proves a difficult obstacle to overcome.  Their relationship is what drives the movie, especially the increasing tension as Xiaochun's experiences increased disdain for his poor background, while his father does every job possible to ensure his son's success.

What struck me most about the movie was the fact that the director did not hide at all the realities of life in one of China's big cities, and the inherent class struggles that can ensue.  Liu Cheng and Liu Xiaochun live in an area of town that is poor, full of folks of working class - including a young escort, Lili, who befriends Liu Xiaochun.  The living conditions they endure are not glamorous, and depicted in a very real light.  What strikes me most is that at some point, Liu Xiaochun's talent catch the attention of *the* eminent professor of violin, Yu Laoshi, who later takes Xiaochun under his tutelage.  Yu Laoshi's house is modern and clean, spacious.  He takes in Liu Xiaochun who beings to see a different style of life - which is all possible given his talent.  He is finally faced with a choice: that to have the life he imagined for, if he gives up his family (who has worked so hard to get him to where he is) - but at the risk of losing the person who he is... or to go home.

My only dislike in the move was that the development of the characters seemed a bit chliched - Liu Cheng while from the country also has a very Confucian attitude, kotowing (literally) to persons who are esteemed above his station; Liu Xiaochun displays the traits of any young spoiled person, while Lili (the ONLY female character in the movie), definitely represents the dragon-lady characteristic quite common in movies.  She is not demure, intense, driven to anger - and rarely gentle or seeming very kind.  I honestly wish there were more female characters in the movie, but I suppose it was a young boy coming of age movie.  The professors are either drunk, or pompous (or both) - and seem to rest quite comfortably on the reputations they have earned in their previous lives.

However, despite any character development (or lack of) the movie was an enjoyable watch, and I think a little more realistic view of what it takes to become successful in any field in China.  It shows the wide range of affluence - and the privileges that affluence affords, and yet still illustrates that despite "having it all," there is still much in life to be desired.  A highly suggested watch - especially if you just want to be entertained.  Special bonus is the classical music soundtrack that weaves its way throughout the movie.  

Neat Article

Hey everyone!  My mother actually sent me this link about how monks in exile are being encouraged by the Dalai Lama to pursue science as a part of their studies.  A very interesting read!


Many thoughts regarding the themes of previous posts regarding how to maintain 'tradition' and still be of the world.  A lot of folks seem to think that science and faith are two mutually exclusive ideas that somehow set the stage for conflict if a person pursues both as a realm of study. 


Reading the article, I immediately thought of the tradition of Jesuits as some of the greatest thinkers, philosophers, mathemeticians and physicists.  The motto for many Jesuits is to "pursue God in all things" - meaning that the priests were and are not encouraged to live lives of cloister, but are meant to be of the world, while not for the world.  In particular, I had to do a recent mini-presentation on Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a colleague of Einstein's, who is credited with some of the original thought behind the Big Bang Theory. 


Given the recent push by the HH the Dalai Lama, I wonder why then is there still this continuing dialectic that sets up "science" or "facts" on one side, and religion and reflection on the other.  What makes people think that 'culture' will be driven awry by science or facts; and how come so many people feel that science challenges or cheapens deeper truths that many people hold close?  


A short post for today, but interested to hear if anyone is familiar with the Emory program mentioned in the article, or any other neat programs that seek to combine the 'hard sciences' with more religious studies.  

Class Warfare or a New Realm of 'Cultures?'

In an interesting post on Truth Dig, professor Juan Cole discusses the implications of the class warfare that has sparked the Occupy Movements, and how or why students in universities tend to be one of the major populations supporting the movements. There are a number of items that Professor Cole discusses, but the one of most interest to me is the dialectic Mr. Cole proposes that places academic institutions as in line with 'Big Business.'

The theme of Prof. Cole's premise that academia is being influenced by the culture of business to provide goods (i.e. students) that then have marketable (read: can make businesses more money) skills, has also been highlighted in recent times. Back in late October, Governor Rick Scott of Florida stating that

"We don’t need a lot more anthropologists in the state. It’s a great degree if people want to get it, but we don’t need them here. I want to spend our dollars giving people science, technology, engineering, and math degrees. That’s what our kids need to focus all their time and attention on, those types of degrees, so when they get out of school, they can get a job." (Courtesy the Marc Bernier show)

Needless to say, this comment caused a lot of stir among anthropologists who immediately came to the defense stating the benefits of anthropology. One of the more interesting items was an opinion article in the Economist, which illustrated the work of Ms. Gillian Tett, who has produced some amazing studies on the culture that preceeded the 2008 financial crisis.

For me, what I find interesting about all these articles is this dialectic that is set up between the 'soft' studies and those of a more technical nature. Much has been writtend on this in both the Chronicle of Higher Education, popular business magazines and more. However, what Ms. Tett alluded to in the economist article - that is that many foks regardless of their occupation are so mired in their own worlds that they fail to see what else is going on around them. I would argue that this is true both in the case of the students involved in OWS as well as Academic institutions and big banks. Everyone is looking through their own lens at a set of very complex interactions that help to define our world. Students do not fully understand the complexities of all the decisions being made - and often tend to demonize 'the man,' when in fact many of these organizations are made up of real people who are trying to do the best they can in a very odd world. Academia is also responding to some very real economic constraints (I don't think forced upon them by the banking institutions, but definitely helped), and are trying to figure how their institutions are going to survive over the next five, ten, fifteen, fifty or hundred years.  Now, granted, I don't think that institutions need to go as far as the Quebecois government has in increasing the tuition rates of its universities an exorbitant amount, but a school does need some basic funding to be able to function.

Business are trying to survive as well. The most common thing I hear in my job is the need for all employers (regardless of industry) to need "smart" people in their jobs. Often there is a misconception that this includes students from "the best" institutions - and in order to maintain top positions, these best institutions often tailor the emphasis of where their money is funded in order to help graduates obtain jobs (one of the measures utilized in college rankings). The business want folks who will help them achieve their mission to make money - and that is part of their culture. Part of their definition of who they are - just as an academic institutions mission is to educate for success (what ever that 'success' may mean).

In our culture today we face a very real fact that money drives everything; as illustrated in my post yesterday, even places and people which we deem 'sacred' are monetized.  For one, I think that it is about time we had another "Jesus moment," where he comes into the temple and upends the tables of all those selling goods and wares in His father's house.  By that, I mean that the only way we can fight against the system of everything needing to have dollars and cents aligned to it (whether business or academia) is to know the enemy, know how to use it, and know how to disprove it.  Gone are the days, for many, when the pursuit of higher education or meaningful careers can and should be pursued for the betterment of the person.  The impetus now lays directly on the shoulders of the said individual to prove how he or she, by way of finding fulfillment can be a better student, professor, worker, and member of society.  If you can show that in terms of efficiency, money, or time spent completing tasks - even better.  Ultimately I do believe that we are in a pendulum swing where money means everything, and I have no doubt the pendulum will swing the other way.  However, until that time I believe it behooves everyone to be able to understand the language of the 'other' and utilize new and different arguments to further expand your own.

Whose culture is it?

Over the weekend I was quite surprised to hear word that the Chinese government plans to build a Tibetan theme park outside the city of Lhasa, Tibet.  I first heard about the news via some Twitter feeds, and then proceeded to read some articles about the news online.

I must say that this move does not surprise me in the least.  When I was in Tibet in 2004, you could already observe a move such as this in the works.  There were "Traditional Villages" scattered throughout the Tibetan countryside, where busloads of Chinese tourists would pull up, and the local villagers would don their fine ceremonial garb and proceed to partake in shows and games to the delight of the audiences.  While the dances and games and shows the native villagers in the area displayed were not not authentic, it was more a matter of the timing and the manner in which they were displayed that bugged many in my group.  The dances or games were often items saved for a holiday, or a feast, and were not examples of "everyday" Tibetan life.

The display of Tibetan culture was also seen in the local clubs, or nangmas,  that are found all throughout Lhasa.  These night-clubs, frequented by both Tibetans, Chinese and tourists from around the world are perhaps one of the most bizarre scenes of cultural displays I have ever witnessed.  Picture this - 11pm at night you are sitting in a dark, crowded club with the music, the lights, the disco beats, when all of a sudden a young woman in traditional, colorful Tibetan clothing steps out on stage and begins to sing a traditional Tibetan love song, while the screen behind her flashes beautiful scenes of the countryside.  The club goes wild, everyone gets up to dance and enjoys a spectacle that I can only describe as modern Tibetan in its entirety.

A few years back, I published an article relating all these themes, and asked the questions "Whose culture is it to define?"  And this question has never been more relevant.  The comments in the Guardian piece I quoted above reflect a naivete on all parts - as the one voice missing from the conversation is that of local Tibetans.  It is true that the recent politics of the Chinese government can come under speculation and scrutiny - especially given the recent spate of self-immolation undertaken as a protest to Chinese rule.  Yet, it can also be said that what the Chinese are doing is not at all different from what the US did to Native Americans, or what the European colonies did to S. America and African nations.  The only difference in this time and age is that we are currently living in a consumerist society where everything (and I mean everything) takes on an identity of commodification.

As I concluded in my paper, and post again here,

"The exoticization of Tibet by China [and Western cultures] inadvertently cheapens its culture and prevents Tibetans from having the freedom to identify it for themselves and to lead their own lives freely.  The true reality of Tibetan culture, a rapidly changing and redefined identity, is then lost amidst the flashes of cameras and glimpes of a culture that existed long ago and no longer exists today."  

I, for one, do not think it wrong that people are alarmed by the idea of building a theme park when such a rich cultural tradition and artifacts already exist in Lhasa.  The Chinese government, for their part say that the purpose of the theme-park is to draw crowds away from these ancient structures so that the increasing footprint of the tourist does less harm to places such as the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple, and nearby monasteries.  In fact, the Chinese tourist population alone dwarfs the rest of the world - and numbers of people who have travelled to Tibet despite restrictions on the part of Western tourists, have jumped dramatically.

Unfortunately though, we are all partners to this cultural commodification - we live in a consumerist society.  A society which China is quickly become a member of, if not a key driver in defining what has value, and what does not.  ANy time we travel and buy some item from a stall, or take a photo with a 'gladiator' posing outside the coliseum, we partake in this same commodification.  It is the way our world is.  For China to take advantage,while also promoting a culture is no different than what Walt Disney did when they created the Epcot Center.  Culture on display, and for sale.  Yet - at the same time many people's only interaction with these cultures is through a display like that in Epcot Center.  It is not truly authentic - but then what is?  Culture shifts so rapidly, and changes so frequently that we are not the ones to dictate what authenticity or tradition is.  All we can do is watch, observe, and speak the truth to our own experiences and our own culture.

The way we communicate

Last night, I finished watching the final episode of "The Big Silence," a documentary created by BBC2.  In the show, it takes five people from all over the UK, and has them explore the purposeful silence in their life.  They are led on their journey by Fr. Christopher, of Worth Abbey (full disclosure, I had the chance while studying in England to go on a weekend retreat at Worth. The priest on 'loan' to the Cambridge Newman Center was a former Abbot of Worth Abbey, and gave us the chance to go there for a weekend retreat.  I thus had the opportunity to meet the priests featured in the program - truly an amazing experience if anyone is looking for a place to make a silent or guided retreat).  I would also highly suggest watching BBC 2's "The Monastery" - the first of these series that gave five men the opportunity to live in a Benedictine Monastery, and to see the results of which play out in "live TV."

At any rate, the program "The Big Silence" is meant to give the watchers a cause to pause and reflect on just how busy we are filling our lives with things. There are the obvious perpetrators such as digital devices, the television and cell phones.  But the program also touches on deeper issues, such as our inability to be in company with those around us without filling the time/place with noise.  Or the habit of many people to go, go, go in every moment of their life with a constant to-do list, which necessitates constant movement (heaven forbid we let one moment lapse - that would be laziness!).

I have dawdled with the idea of silence for the past few years.  Growing up Catholic, I always loved going on retreats - especially now as a working adult.  To spend time in a place outside of a city, where one could hear the cacophony of birds and animals outside, well, to me just feels like being wrapped up in a blanket of luxuriousness.  However, despite how much people gain from silence and pause, we seem to revert back to ever more-connected means of communications.

It led me to ponder upon going to bed last night, what impact is the lack of silence and self-reflection having on our culture as a whole?  Are we stifling ourselves from the moments of reflection that can lead to genuine insight?  Are we overbooking ourselves into mediocrity?  What is happening, as a result, to our ability to communicate with others either by person or through written media?

On the one hand, it can be very easily argued that improvements in communication have made it so much easier to communicate.  I can use Skype to call friends all over the world - or pop an email to my Aunt in England asking her for her recipe for Yorkshire Pudding, and receive an almost instantaneous response.  Yet on the other hand, how is our new method of communicating via tweets and texts changing how we actually think and make decisions - is everything now being condensed to 140 characters?  If so, what are we loosing as a result, or what are we gaining?

The thoughts above took me back to an undergraduate Anthropology class I had at Michigan, where I remember reading Invitations to Love: Literacy, Love Letters, and Social Change in Nepal, where Professor Ahearn discussed the impact of written language had on traditional marriage rituals and ceremonies.  I never made the connection before, but is it possible that we are witnessing our own shift in cultural values and implications of that shift in real-time?  Admittedly, linguistic anthropology was never my strong suit, but still the fascination of how our language is both a by-product of our time, and a key shaper of how we relate to the world is fascinating.

And that brings me back to the whole silence question.  Last week, a boss of mine posed a question to our internal group and that is should we consider taking a one day electronic hiatus?  He was inspired by this article, but the responses of the crowd at large was fascinating.  Most everyone responded "yes, we need an unplugged day."  A few keen observers though had the insight of why do we think of this technology as somehow impeding our communication - why is it not just an innate part of culture, where it is seen as natural as it was to use the original land-line telephones to communicate (as opposed to writing letters or going over to your neighbor's house to 'call' upon them).  Regardless of what you think of the use of electronic devices, I do think that we each need to have our moments of silence.  Where we can take the wealth of information before us, have time to meditate, or to pray, and to see how new innovations and solutions - or perhaps questions to answers that impede us may bubble to the surface.

I am curious to know the general populations' thought on this.  Agree/disagree?  Anyone have a better understanding of the paradigmatic shift we're seeing when it comes to our language?