Screen Actors Guild and Gandhi: What’s the Cost of Cooperation?
I’ve been loosely following the goings-on in the Screen Actors Guild negotiations, and I admit that much of my info seems to come from the dueling statements by various factions which are reposted on Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood site, but it strikes me that there’s a really interesting case study here of an idea I’ve seen expressed by Gandhi (and certainly elsewhere). In a nutshell, SAG has gotten nowhere in its negotiations with the main group of production companies, the AMPTP. In order to try to gain some leverage in the negotiations, the national board of SAG wants to hold a strike authorization vote. They don’t actually want to strike yet, they just want to make it clear that a strike is a possibility if a suitable deal isn’t worked out. Various factions within SAG, along with many unions and industry participants outside of SAG, make the argument that given the current economy, it’s a terrible time to strike and possibly put people out of work, and SAG should just hurry up and try to get the best contract it can now.
OK, so where’s the Gandhi come in? One of the major tenets of his strategy of non-cooperation was that no minority can exploit a larger group without that group’s permission and cooperation. If the larger group simply refuses to cooperate, then the smaller group can not accomplish any of the things it wants to accomplish and therefore can not benefit from the oppression. In the case of India, Britain could gain no advantage from its empire without the labor of the colonial subjects, the general acceptance of colonial rule, and the work of native administrators and officials. If every man, woman and child in India refused to do any work that would benefit the British Empire, the British in India would be at a loss and Britain itself would gain no raw materials or profitable market. The oppressed must go along with their oppression. Why would the oppressed willingly cooperate with their oppressors? Because the oppressors have the power to inflict suffering. They can take away what small amount of resources and freedom the oppressed have obtained for themselves. They can even take away the oppressed’s lives. And so, in order to preserve the small bit that they have, the oppressed cooperate and do not demand the much greater amount of resources and freedom to which they are entitled. You know the expression that no one is more dangerous than someone with nothing left to lose? Well, the flip side is that if you give someone just a tiny amount to lose, they become a whole lot less dangerous.
Gandhi’s argument was that oppression and injustice resulted in suffering anyway, and that suffering that resulted from cooperation with oppression served no purpose. The suffering that resulted from non-cooperation, however, would not only serve to purify the people who endured it, but it would result in a better future with less suffering overall. If India was bound to suffer, Gandhi reasoned, let it suffer with dignity and purpose. That is, admittedly, a very difficult thing to say to the person who is going to suffer or die as a result of the non-cooperation. But does cooperation really guarantee the preservation of one’s belongings? I’m not sure it does.
Now, how does this connect to SAG? Production companies can not make any money if they don’t have any product, and without the actors in SAG they are going to have a difficult time producing enough product to keep their bottom lines in reasonable shape. Striking actors would suffer in a strike, as would other professionals. But if that suffering brought about a more equitable economic system, one that appropriately valued the contributions of those professionals, might the suffering be worth it? Might it not be better to stand up for what’s right, and persevere until you were successful, rather than allow corporations that depend on your creativity to wait you out because they have a bigger bank balance?
Right now this is a theoretical question for me. I’ve been a part time employee my entire adult life, so I’ve never had to think these issues through and make the decision about when it’s worthwhile to go without a paycheck to make a larger point. But down the road a bit, I might have to make that choice, so I admit I’m watching how others do it a little more closely.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.