1.28.2004
Informer
Chances are good that if you're here, you've been here at some point and read about the static surrounding Peter Landesman's very depressing story on sex trafficking.
To add to the dogpile: A good chunk of Jack Shafer's criticism indicts anti-slavery activist Kevin Bales' fudgy stat work. The attack makes sense, even if you're put off by the fact that Shafer seems a little jumpy to defend the integrity of counting. Bales is the author of Disposable People and an all-around fascinating character. His only problem has been this: dropping the word "slavery" in the United States is the easiest way to get someone's attention, and then lose it very quickly. His treatment of chattel slavery in America is one of his book's only blind spots and it's amplified by the huge discursive shadow the word casts in these herre parts. In a way, this inadequacy of language muddies everyone involved--Landesman ends up splitting hairs, Bales has to weigh then-and-now oppressions and neutral-ish critics like Shafer remain neutral-ish. Rather than pursuing the infinite forms of exploitation condoned by our lifestyles, people end up wondering, "Is the New Slavery the same as the old one?" and "How can they be 'slaves' if they're technically getting paid?" and "I don't see any shackles." In a sense, Shafer could be right -- using current qualifiers, there aren't that many slaves out there. But he (and we and they) would be far better served if he applied his sleuth skills to what it was we were trying to count in the first place.
Vzzzzzzzzt. Change clothes and go in a different direction: does anyone have an MP3 of the Nonce's "Picnic Song?"
To add to the dogpile: A good chunk of Jack Shafer's criticism indicts anti-slavery activist Kevin Bales' fudgy stat work. The attack makes sense, even if you're put off by the fact that Shafer seems a little jumpy to defend the integrity of counting. Bales is the author of Disposable People and an all-around fascinating character. His only problem has been this: dropping the word "slavery" in the United States is the easiest way to get someone's attention, and then lose it very quickly. His treatment of chattel slavery in America is one of his book's only blind spots and it's amplified by the huge discursive shadow the word casts in these herre parts. In a way, this inadequacy of language muddies everyone involved--Landesman ends up splitting hairs, Bales has to weigh then-and-now oppressions and neutral-ish critics like Shafer remain neutral-ish. Rather than pursuing the infinite forms of exploitation condoned by our lifestyles, people end up wondering, "Is the New Slavery the same as the old one?" and "How can they be 'slaves' if they're technically getting paid?" and "I don't see any shackles." In a sense, Shafer could be right -- using current qualifiers, there aren't that many slaves out there. But he (and we and they) would be far better served if he applied his sleuth skills to what it was we were trying to count in the first place.
Vzzzzzzzzt. Change clothes and go in a different direction: does anyone have an MP3 of the Nonce's "Picnic Song?"
