In terms of establishing the pirate brand, you discuss cruelty as a means of achieving that notoriety. That's exactly right. Again, if we think of piracy as a business, as I think we should, their reputation was just as important as it is for any other business. So in order to institutionalize the brand name that they wanted to cultivate, what they needed to do was first work diligently in creating it. The way that they did that was through ruthlessly adhering to this idea of torturing people if they didn't comply with them once they had boarded their ship. We normally think about pirates as sort of blood-lusting, that they want to slash somebody to pieces. [It's probably more likely that] a pirate, just like a normal person, would probably rather not have killed someone, but pirates knew that if that person resisted them and they didn't do something about it, their reputation and thus their brand name would be impaired. So you can imagine a pirate rather reluctantly engaging in this behavior as a way of preserving that reputation. <...> One thing that I thought was interesting is the fact that some of these pirate ships had institutionalized a form of worker's compensation. They did, and I talk about that in-depth in a different paper I wrote. But that's exactly what they had. And one of the things that's marvelous about the system is, first of all, its earliness. That was not a common thing in the 17th- and 18th-century world. Merchant sailors, for example, didn't have access to something similar through the state until after pirates had already adopted this. But in any event it was a highly detailed scheme, so if you lost your right arm it would be worth x number of pieces of eight, and if you lost your left leg it would be worth y number of pieces of eight in compensation. So it was quite a developed system. In this paper you focus primarily on the "golden age" of piracy. But what do you make of piracy today, especially with the Somali pirates in the news of late? ... it's still nowhere near as elaborate or as interesting. The constitutions that 18th-century pirates had ... created a true system of social governance on the pirate ship. Seventeenth- and 18th-century pirates were pioneers, in a certain way, of constitutional democracy. They had checks and balances aboard their ship, they had an early form of quasi-judicial review, and they were democratic, which was virtually unheard of in the Western world at that time. The reason modern pirates don't have that, I think, is because 18th-century pirates spent lots and lots of time together at sea. It could be months on end. And they lived and worked and operated apart from legitimate society for long periods of time, which meant that the pirate ship was a kind of floating society. And that society, like any other one, required rules in order for it to be functional. If you look at modern pirates, they tend to spend very little time together on their ships. Modern pirate expeditions tend to be in-and-out operations. And since they aren't really together in the same way that 18th-century pirate crews were, they don't really constitute floating societies. Therefore they don't face the same kinds of social problems, at least to the same extent, that the 18th-century pirates did, and so that's why they don't have elaborate rules. No society, no rules. They still seem to be turning a pretty nice profit. Oh, absolutely. They seem to be doing well. I don't think that they're inferior predators. It's just that they're not as interesting predators.
One thing that I thought was interesting is the fact that some of these pirate ships had institutionalized a form of worker's compensation. They did, and I talk about that in-depth in a different paper I wrote. But that's exactly what they had. And one of the things that's marvelous about the system is, first of all, its earliness. That was not a common thing in the 17th- and 18th-century world. Merchant sailors, for example, didn't have access to something similar through the state until after pirates had already adopted this. But in any event it was a highly detailed scheme, so if you lost your right arm it would be worth x number of pieces of eight, and if you lost your left leg it would be worth y number of pieces of eight in compensation. So it was quite a developed system.
In this paper you focus primarily on the "golden age" of piracy. But what do you make of piracy today, especially with the Somali pirates in the news of late? ... it's still nowhere near as elaborate or as interesting. The constitutions that 18th-century pirates had ... created a true system of social governance on the pirate ship. Seventeenth- and 18th-century pirates were pioneers, in a certain way, of constitutional democracy. They had checks and balances aboard their ship, they had an early form of quasi-judicial review, and they were democratic, which was virtually unheard of in the Western world at that time. The reason modern pirates don't have that, I think, is because 18th-century pirates spent lots and lots of time together at sea. It could be months on end. And they lived and worked and operated apart from legitimate society for long periods of time, which meant that the pirate ship was a kind of floating society. And that society, like any other one, required rules in order for it to be functional.
If you look at modern pirates, they tend to spend very little time together on their ships. Modern pirate expeditions tend to be in-and-out operations. And since they aren't really together in the same way that 18th-century pirate crews were, they don't really constitute floating societies. Therefore they don't face the same kinds of social problems, at least to the same extent, that the 18th-century pirates did, and so that's why they don't have elaborate rules. No society, no rules.
They still seem to be turning a pretty nice profit. Oh, absolutely. They seem to be doing well. I don't think that they're inferior predators. It's just that they're not as interesting predators.
WTF?
What Would Blackbeard Do? Why Piracy Pays: Scientific American
You discuss strategies that pirates employ to brand themselves and to develop the image of barbarians not to be trifled with. And you highlight this by citing the example of the Jolly Roger. At the time that pirates of the early 18th century were operating in the Caribbean, there were other potential attackers that a merchant crew might confront. The reason that's important is because those other potential attackers were less fearsome than pirates, because they were constrained by the law. Pirates could do whatever they wanted to you if you resisted them, but these guys were, at least in principle, somewhat limited. So if pirates wanted to take the prey with as little resistance as possible, which they did because they wanted to keep costs down, what they needed to do was to somehow indicate that "I'm a pirate and I will kill you if you resist me," as opposed to one of these legitimate attackers. And in response to that need, which is again a profit-driven purpose, pirates developed the Jolly Roger.
While I think it's a bit of a reach, I don't quite get how this theory is "Orwellian". If anything, I see it as tarnishing the concept of "branding" as something even outlaws like pirates exploited in a completely calculated manner (supposedly). Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Because he is trying to brand his theory of course! ;-)
And it's not the theory that is Orwellian, but rather the overuse of managerial buzzwords, of which this is only an example...
I don't know. To me "Orwellian" implies an ulterior motive on the part of a society's dominant power structure to influence popular culture and thinking that reinforce that power structure. I don't see how the extension of the concepts like "branding" or "rational-choice theory" to describe the behavior of 18th century pirates enhances the status, legitimacy, or hold of the dominant power structure in today's society, however you want to interpret that.
What if someone tried to argue that "branding" and "rational-choice theory" were used by Hitler to build the Third Reich? Would you call this an "Orwellian overuse of managerial buzzwords"? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
To me "Orwellian" implies an ulterior motive on the part of a society's dominant power structure to influence popular culture and thinking that reinforce that power structure
Well, I tend to believe there is such an attempt... Among many examples, see this, on how economics is confused with companies, and entrepreneurs the only valid actors in that field. And need I talk about the interactions between the US's wealthy class and many Friedmanist economists ?
Orwellian language is not only about extending concepts, but also impoverishing language by losing precisions ; with fewer words available, you make thinking outside the frame imposed by the words that are left much harder. For example, it means researchers about 17th century pirates have to use such buzzwords for PR rather than precise words that have meanings relevant to the time and place ; and the social sciences have already enough problems as it is with imprecise vocabulary. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Simpler Terms; If It's 'Orwellian', It's Probably Not ... as advertisers have known for a long time, no audience is easier to beguile than one that is smugly confident of its own sophistication. The word ''Orwellian'' contributes to that impression. Like ''propaganda,'' it implies an aesthetic judgment more than a moral one. Calling an expression Orwellian means not that it's deceptive but that it's crudely deceptive. Today, the real damage isn't done by the euphemisms and circumlocutions that we're likely to describe as Orwellian. ''Ethnic cleansing,'' ''revenue enhancement,'' ''voluntary regulation,'' ''tree-density reduction,'' ''faith-based initiatives,'' ''extra affirmative action,'' ''single-payer plans'' -- these terms may be oblique, but at least they wear their obliquity on their sleeves. Rather, the words that do the most political work are simple ones -- ''jobs and growth,'' ''family values'' and ''color-blind'' not to mention ''life'' and ''choice.'' But concrete words like these are the hardest ones to see through. They're opaque when you hold them up to the light. Orwell knew that, of course. ''To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle'' -- not what you'd call an Orwellian sentiment, but very like the man.
... as advertisers have known for a long time, no audience is easier to beguile than one that is smugly confident of its own sophistication. The word ''Orwellian'' contributes to that impression. Like ''propaganda,'' it implies an aesthetic judgment more than a moral one. Calling an expression Orwellian means not that it's deceptive but that it's crudely deceptive.
Today, the real damage isn't done by the euphemisms and circumlocutions that we're likely to describe as Orwellian. ''Ethnic cleansing,'' ''revenue enhancement,'' ''voluntary regulation,'' ''tree-density reduction,'' ''faith-based initiatives,'' ''extra affirmative action,'' ''single-payer plans'' -- these terms may be oblique, but at least they wear their obliquity on their sleeves.
Rather, the words that do the most political work are simple ones -- ''jobs and growth,'' ''family values'' and ''color-blind'' not to mention ''life'' and ''choice.'' But concrete words like these are the hardest ones to see through. They're opaque when you hold them up to the light.
Orwell knew that, of course. ''To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle'' -- not what you'd call an Orwellian sentiment, but very like the man.
That second to last paragraph also touches on the danger of imprecision, although perhaps from a different angle.
But on the most basic level, pirate "brand image" is not an Orwellian use of language for the very simple reason that the author is not advocating or justifying piracy, either overtly or covertly. If he were being Orwellian in the use of his language, those would be the aims of his unconventional use of such terms as "brand image", etc.
Out of curiosity, would you also consider this characterization to be Orwellian?
Seventeenth- and 18th-century pirates were pioneers, in a certain way, of constitutional democracy. They had checks and balances aboard their ship, they had an early form of quasi-judicial review, and they were democratic, which was virtually unheard of in the Western world at that time.
How about the claim that pirates had pioneered a sophisticated system of "worker's compensation"?
What is the difference between applying these more terms and applying terms like "branding" and "brand image" to what the pirates were doing, if any? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
But on the most basic level, pirate "brand image" is not an Orwellian use of language for the very simple reason that the author is not advocating or justifying piracy, either overtly or covertly.
I do not see how that is relevant ; what feels Orwellian is not the promotion of piracy but that of enterprises' buzzspeak. And I do not say these are the aim of the speaker ; indeed, the particularly Orwellian moment is not when the propagandist uses Orwellian language, but when others use it, and find it normal.
This is a somewhat sloppy anachronism, too, but it is less part of, well, company buzzspeak. Which is one it doesn't feel as much as an Orwellian moment. And also, it is, in fact, what seems really new in what the pirates were doing, and thus the anachronism is the point ; whereas reputation through massacre has a much, much longer history. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
I think this is where we differ.
You seem to believe that corporate/economic buzz-speak is intrinsically Orwellian, even when the ends to which such terms are applied by the speaker/writer/thinker are politically neutral.
I believe that for something to be Orwellian, there has to be an intent to deceive or distort. In the case of this particular economist (putting aside the merits of his theory or lack thereof for now), he is not trying to deceive or distort, but rather to inform and elucidate.
But this does raise an interesting point: When the mere use of certain terms reinforces the legitimacy and/or appeal of an ideology or culture that supports the dominant power structure (even if that usage creates potentially bad associations for those terms), then does using those terms become intrinsically Orwellian (because no matter how and when and to what end the speaker uses them, they serve to reinforce the dominant power structure)?
So if we were living in a society that was not dominated by corporate power, using the words "brand image" and "branding" would not be Orwellian, or at least not as muuch. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Using (in an imprecise way : because after all, the original meaning is still valid) buzz speak when the speaker does not intend to promote it feels much more Orwellian than when there is such a promotional intent.
I believe that for something to be Orwellian, there has to be an intent to deceive or distort
Because the problem with Orwellian speech is not its use as propaganda, easily recognisable as such, but but when indeed its formulations and simplifications become part of common discourse, orienting thoughts its way... I'd find it much more worrying if the economist was using "brand name" without being aware of its impreciseness rather than because he was fishing for some speaking tour in business conferences... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Here is the paper in which he develops the idea (I have not read it, just the Scientific American interview):
Pirational Choice: The Economics of Infamous Pirate Practices
linca: Because the problem with Orwellian speech is not its use as propaganda, easily recognisable as such, but but when indeed its formulations and simplifications become part of common discourse, orienting thoughts its way.
Here I think you are presuming people guilty until proven innocent of being intellectually compromised by corporate buzz speak. I believe the burden of proof goes the other way around. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
I'll also note that the author is a member of the Georges Mason University Department of Economics, which was heavily funded by right wing fundations. Giving a bit more of that Orwellian vibe. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
I don't see how the extension of the concepts like "branding" or "rational-choice theory" to describe the behavior of 18th century pirates enhances the status, legitimacy, or hold of the dominant power structure in today's society, however you want to interpret that.
Isn't he actively making a case that the dominant power structures are essentially piratical and beyond the law, and will kill you if you resist?
It may not enhance the popularity if the message, but I'm not sure that it's detrimental to its status and persuasive impact.
