‘The Corporation’ is a genuine documentary related to important globalization issues. This film by Mark Archbar, Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan, succeeded in offering to viewers the big picture of what the truth is in fact through the prism of “the bad apples” among the well-known organizations. Every single one of these organizations composes ‘The Corporation’ in question. Unfortunately, that truth the documentary talks about is a negative response to our “prosperity”, “welfare” and “economic growth” achieved by now, a destructive consequence for the world we live now, for our planet. But despite all these forced changes, the United States of America are still considered to be the most secure place to invest in, the best opportunity to create successful corporations.
A good quote taken from the film itself to better explain what ‘The Corporation’ is in fact about would be: the corporation is seen “as a part of a jigsaw in society as a whole, which if you remove it, the picture is incomplete” – in this way the theories regarding what will happen in a future society aim also to analyze the roots, the evolution and development, and last but not least, the consequences and the impact of the modern business corporation. The corporation evolved from an insignificant to a dominant institution, representing a balance between wealth and harms, a balance which tends to be…unbalanced. The influence on people’s quotidian life is compared on the one hand to a united family, an omnipresent telephone system or a competitive eagle, and on the other hand to a dangerous whale or an unleashed Frankenstein, paying with innocent people’s life in order to obtain profit. That’s how the rights of the corporation were increased in the detriment of human society.
The third factor in this triangle besides the corporation and the beneficiary is the one which pays the dues, as Milton Friedman explains. Therefore the dire exploitation of the environment, of the Third World countries labor, and especially the human being himself are those who suffer, but also those who sustain and maintain the corporation’s spread and amplification.
It seems that the corporation gained the status of a legal person diagnosed with personality problems as psychopathy, an empowered institution to influence our society, enough to cause the loss of public control over considerable corporations. The entire society is “incorporated” in this corporative action, that it became almost impossible to detect the differences between a moral individual and an unscrupulous corporation. For example, I find outrageous the fact that behind the tragic events of 9/11, brokers and people who possessed gold thought in the first place that the price of gold will rise and the unfortunate destruction represented an opportunity for profit. Another good example of how consumers are “educated” and trained to buy useless goods would be the manipulation of children by effectively teaching them how to nag efficiently their parents in order to obtain a certain product from the wide market.
In my opinion, the most impressive case study which exemplified how media is bribed and consequently how the population is manipulated was that about the two journalists fired by the Fox News for the hypocrite reason that they denied to hide the truth based on scientific research made on Posilac, Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone. Their investigative report described the negative effects of the synthetic hormone, but the media decided to keep the lie safe. As a parallel reaction, in Bolivia, the privatization of water, the essential resource of life, cause violent protests and moreover proved that “one should never underestimate the power of the people”.
In conclusion, even if it seems that the dominance of the corporation replaced the government step by step, I think that the most significant responsibility belongs to industry and basically the modern corporation was conceived during the industrial age, unleashed in 1712. However, I feel that it is too late now and maybe it is the time to turn the page and to fight back for our planet’s sake and why not, in revenge, to “sell” the corporation for the humanity’s profit.
Jan 24, 2012 @ 23:23:30
Reading your RP one eventually gets the gist of the film. But it takes some effort. The structure of the film and the way its argument is constructed are hardly visible in your text.
You make some valid points, even if you struggle with stylistic issues – e.g. “Unfortunately, that truth the documentary talks about is a negative response to our “prosperity”, “welfare” and “economic growth” achieved by now, a destructive consequence for the world we live now, for our planet.” And some of the examples you mention are indeed instructive, such the one involving Fox News.
But overall the text is plagued by composition difficulties. Most of your longer sentences suffer in terms of coherence. This seems to be a recurrent issue and I suggest that you work on it. The reason this happens here – or part of the reason at least – is that you took claims from the film without really understanding them or spending too much time to think about them. Then parts of these claims were inserted into sentences that sometimes are very close to being meaningless. E.g. “It seems that the corporation gained the status of a legal person diagnosed with personality problems as psychopathy, an empowered institution to influence our society, enough to cause the loss of public control over considerable corporations.” – which makes no sense.
Try to use simpler, shorter sentences involving concepts that you do understand.
Never start a paragraph with ‘a good quote….’. Each paragraph should introduce an idea or a related group of ideas.
It is a good idea to make arguments explicit using such logical terms as ‘therefore’. But this requires care – in order to avoid e.g. “The third factor in this triangle besides the corporation and the beneficiary is the one which pays the dues, as Milton Friedman explains. Therefore the dire exploitation of the environment, of the Third World countries labor, and especially the human being himself are those who suffer, but also those who sustain and maintain the corporation’s spread and amplification.”
Jan 25, 2012 @ 01:03:34
I can say that I thought about writing the reaction paper correlated with the sequences in which the documentary is divided, but I gave up to the idea…I don’t know if it was better.
Besides this, if I may, I have 2 little objections:
Firstly, I do understand what I wanted to say in that meaningless phrase: “Se pare ca organizatia a castigat statutul unei “persoane legale”, diagnosticata cu “probleme de personalitate” precum psihopatia, o institutie imputernicita sa ne influenteze societatea, indeajuns incat sa cauzeze pierderea controlului public asupra marilor organizatii.” As the film make a comparison with a psychopathic person in accordance which some FBI investigations (I don’t remember exactly). If in Romanian also, this phrase makes no sense, it means that I have a problem, because sometimes I find myself lost in words; or I didn’t understand very well the film. But once again, I understand what I wanted to say, and maybe this is the most important
.
Secondly, concerning “A good quote” statement, I’ve found it in your example link ( http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/reaction.html ) on how to write a reaction paper.
And may I ask you what do you mean by struggling with stylistic issues? It is related to composition difficulties and lack of coherence, too?
Thank you for your time!