While the film’s attempt to ascribe characteristics of psychopathy to modern corporations may be seen by some as an effective narrative tool, I believe it is problematic and ultimately detracts from the legitimacy of the film’s message. Aside from the notion that the concept of psychopathy is a somewhat contentious concept in psychology *, the repeated imagery of a DSM checklist to highlight undesirable characteristics of corporations may inadvertently contribute to a process which conflates mental illness in general with socially undesirable behaviour. I agree with a point made in Noah’s post (apologies if I misunderstood) that the film could have chosen a more direct manner in which to critique the notion of corporate personhood. Aside from these shortcomings, I do feel that the film makes a number of compelling arguments. I believe the strength of’ ‘The Corporation’ lies in the film’s ability to call into question the central role of the corporation in modern society. By illustrating the changing function of the corporation throughout history, the film demonstrates that in a matter of a few generations corporations have transformed from a once obscure, highly-regulated entity to what has become the dominant cultural institution of our time. In this regard, I feel that the most poignant point that was raised was the disingenuous way in which corporate lawyers in the 19th century capitalized on the 14th amendment. While the purpose of the 14th amendment was to attempt to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people, corporate lawyers distorted its meaning to apply rights to property and capital. The willingness with which these arguments were embraced in order to bestow the right of personhood on corporations while Black people continue to be dehumanized in various ways (I.E disproportionately incarcerated and subject to police brutality) highlights the institutional racism that persists throughout society and the legal system. I believe the film also raised issues regarding the extent to which ‘corporate social responsibility’ (‘CSR’) is a dubious and inadequate response to issues of corporate destruction. In contrast to chartered corporations of the past that were subject to much more stringent government oversight and regulation, corporate social responsibility is more of an exercise in marketing and image-management in response to contemporary public discourse. While CSR initiatives may result in positive social outcomes, consumers need to remain critical about the nature of and motivation behind these programs, and reject the notion that market-incentives alone will guide corporations towards more ethical and sustainable behaviour.
* http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/07/03/improving-the-definition-of-%E2%80%98psychopath%E2%80%99/64.html
