Comments on: Anthropologists Demand Coca-Cola Boycott

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:09:25 +0000

Has anyone tried Mecca-cola? Or Cola Turka? These are more interesting forms of protest: as Mecca-cola think of it 'putting the economy to work in the interest of ideology' - that is, a Muslim ideology, whereby 10-20% of profits are donated to Palistinian causes. I haven't come across many anthropological analyses of these new Cola's but Derya Özkan and Rob Foster have a nice paper on Cola Turka, available online complete with amusing mpeg adverts...starring Chevy Chase.

By: Md. Abul Hashem, PhD

Md. Abul Hashem, PhD — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:00:33 +0000

I am also agree with the other anthropologists regarding Coca Cola due its present performance.

Dr. Md. Abul Hashem
President
Resource and Human Development Association (REHUDA)
House# 7, Ground Floor, Flat # C, Road# 1, Block E, Banasree, Rampura,
Dhaka-1219, Bangladesh. Phone: 0088-02-7287501
Fax: 0088-02-7286415 Mobile:0088-0189488351
0088-0176858673
e-mail: rehudango@yahoo.com
rehudabd@yahoo.com

By: Robert T. O'Brien

Robert T. O'Brien — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:07:04 +0000

Folks are correct to be concerned about the difficulties of a boycott. This is a very different situation than the AAA has faced with the hotels. I suggest that we take a step back and look at the role of a boycott to understand what the various resolutions that have been passed by AAA sections and the AAA Labor Relations Commission are asking.

Unlike the hotel strife, where our power is in our ability to bring business to particular hotels, in a boycott situation our power is in bringing attention to bear on a business’s practices. Coke spends a larger amount on their image than most developing countries have in GDP. That image-management is our target.

Whether Ozma or other individual members buy a Coke on their way to work or even from their mini-bar in a contract hotel is immaterial. In exclusive-contract hotels, the EB and sections could decide one-by-one to carefully order food and beverages for their events, letting members know ahead of time that beverages other than tap water will not be provided.

But this, ultimately, doesn’t matter either. The power we have is in Coke’s careful management of its image and the public pressure we can bring to bear on Coke through our statements, through reports to Coke reps from hotel food and beverage managers, and through (once again) providing leadership for other professional associations.

In addition to the SANA session, there will be another panel at the 2006 AAA. I hope that we will also discuss this and other labor issues at a forum the LRC has been given.

By: JulianB

JulianB — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:54:15 +0000

FYI – there will be a session at the 2006 Meetings of the Society for the Anthropology of North America on this issue, consisting of a roundtable with Lesley Gill, Camilo Romero of United Students Against Sweatshops, Terry Collingsworth of the International Labor Rights Fund, Ray Rogers of Corporate Campaign Inc., and William Mendoza of SinalTrainal, and an open discussion to follow — at which the same issues you and the commenters being brought up here surely will be discussed.

The SANA meetings are being held April 20-22 in NYC. For info see http://sananet.org/2006conf/papers.html.

The Coca Cola panel is tentatively scheduled for Friday morning.

Julian Brash
Conference Chair
2006 SANA Meetings

By: Mr Mysterious

Mr Mysterious — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:21:03 +0000

But, aren’t many states the way they are because of corporate manipulation?

By: Ozma

Ozma — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:51:12 +0000

Well, I’m no authority on the situation in Colombia. But yes, it would make sense that a “private” kind of pressure is being advocated in the absence of a good “state” option (because the state has a limited ability to function in Colombia). At the same time, I feel like, isn’t what Colombians need a good fair functional state? And is pushing on coca-cola going to do much to accomplish that? I wonder the same thing about sweatshop campaigns etc: like, is the problem Nike using sweatshop labor or the government of country X allowing sweatshop labor to exist at all? I just am worried by the whole process, the pushing on private industry to do what states can’t or won’t. Do we ultimately want Coca-Cola or Nike as the guarantors of fair labor? After all, we don’t get to vote (except as consumers) on “Nike” or “CC” policy.

By: Kerim

Kerim — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:55:51 +0000

From what I’ve read such boycotts are most effective when they are in coordinated support with local activists, as is the case here.

I think you know more about South American politics than I do, but isn’t the abdication of state power in the face of the Colombian paramilitaries one of the issues here?

By: Ozma

Ozma — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:05:57 +0000

I haven’t generated, nor read, critiques of business-by-business boycotts, but I feel like one is itching to be written (if it doesn’t already exist). The coca-cola boycott makes me feel the same way the Wal-mart boycott does: I am totally sympathetic to the ends, but know already that I am not going to be a part of the means. I probably drink 2 cans of Coke per week, and I am certain I go to Wal-Mart once or twice a month. I really don’t want to stop doing either.

So — maybe this just demonstrates that I am a selfish wanker (here I modestly wave aside your shouts of “no, no”). But I also think that successful political action should sort of model, in itself, the end-goal: do we want a more participatory democracy? Let’s get it by participating! But it is definitely NOT one of my goals to live in a world free of sweet carbonated drinks nor of vast storehouses of goods. I think these kinds of boycotts appeal only to those people who find these means appealing also as ends: they want a world with no Coke and no Wal-Mart (along with no terrorized unionists — but I’m only on board for this last bit).

I also don’t like the privatization of politics that these boycotts presuppose and entail. Do we get a better world by systematically taking out one “multinational company” after another, or — by making sure that the rules by which such companies are regulated are good rules and enforced rules? The latter only can happen via states, the entities toward which I continue to believe most political action should be oriented.

That being said, I do follow most animal cruelty boycotts, but that’s because I think public support for anti-vivisection legislation is quite weak and so the consumer method is the better bet there.