Pages

Friday, January 30, 2009

Questioning people's motives

This is the second in my series of "thinking out loud" posts loosely grouped under the banner of Toward a 21st Century Ethos. The ideas are laid down here with broad brush strokes, and the devil will most certainly be hidden in the details.

Never one to take small bites when chewing on a subject, today I try to tackle the question of what motivates people and the need to build a social economy not centered around profit and greed. To discuss economics might seem off-topic, but I would argue that how a society functions at its most fundamental level and the behavior it encourages cannot be compartmentalized from the ethics we preach in church or at home.

In our capitalistic society, no ideal is enshrined as highly or protected as thoroughly as the right to private property and profit. Our legal system was constructed to preserve it. Our myths and metaphors revolve around it.

Our cultural icons are rugged individuals who thrive on self-reliance to achieve great material success. They disdain weakness and collective action. Yes there are many exceptions, but the general storyline still runs through most of our pop-culture mythology. These are ideas that arose from and suited the needs of industrial capitalism.

Some may try to argue that as a "Christian" nation, our ethics are actually informed by the New Testament. And on an individual level that may be true, but it's not the behavior that is expected or rewarded by the prevailing social order. In fact, I would argue, that the lessons taught by Christ are often in direct opposition to those encouraged by our society.

Despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly assailed greed as a motivating force (see Matthew 19:23-24, as just one example), many Christians seem to wall-off their religious beliefs as separate from their economic ones. This is usually rationalized with Christ's own words "render unto Caesar." The meaning of those words is ambiguous, but many take it as an implicit endorsement of maintaining a split personality in our secular and spiritual lives. It may be that he was renouncing participation in the economy at any level, but I'm not here to argue his intention.

I'm also not here to argue against the separation of Church and State, which I completely agree is a vital component of our democracy. What I am here to do is argue for better aligning our social behavior with our ethical beliefs, and there are plenty of common moral principles that span the plethora of our different spiritual traditions.

Here are just a few that I think most of us can agree on: ensuring an equality of opportunity for all to contribute; serving the greater good; rewarding honesty and accountability. Our current system fails at those things in most instances. Naomi Klein, who I saw speak just last night and who is the author of The Shock Doctine, does a better job of documenting specific examples of that than I ever could.

What I would like to do in this essay is provoke people to begin to question whether the social system built up around profit and private property still suits us in a day and age when advances in technology are rendering their pursuit not only obsolete but damaging to our further growth.

There is no argument that as a social system, capitalism served some very well. I firmly believe, however, the beneficiaries of its largesse are a rapidly shrinking minority. I'm also convinced that the corrosive influence of profit-seeking as the prime motivator in our society is undermining the integrity of all our essential institutions: medicine, education, government, and beyond.

There is also a very dark cynicism to the ethos of capitalism. It feeds a myth that human beings are essentially lazy and corrupt, and that they can only be motivated by the promise of fulfilling their most selfish material desires. My experience, and I'm guessing yours too, is that most people are on the whole good-hearted and giving. They are motivated by a desire to contribute to their communities and better the situation of their families. They want a purpose in life, and to belong to something greater than themselves.

What could arise in place of a profit-based economy? I think the glimpse of an answer was provided in Pekka Himanen's book The Hacker's Ethic. It describes a culture where people are motivated by respect and recognition among their peers. These hackers (the term did not originally hold its current pejorative sense) collaborated on open source projects, not to win great riches, but to establish their reputations. Because of the collective work of so many talented indivduals, they also created much stronger products than their proprietary competitors.

How much more successfully could a society function that did not limit how its members could contribute their talents, and that did not impose false rationing of resources in order to preserve an opportunity for the few to profit at the expense of the many? It's a matter of giving up our allegiance to old and outdated ideologies, and of looking at the world with the fresh eyes of a newborn. We do have the ability to make radical changes in the way we live, but we still lack the political will.

The trends of automation, digital communications, and open-source software and hardware (check out this interesting Wired article) are pushing the cost of manufactured goods further and further down. They're reducing the possibility of profit through any but the most artificial of means. This may seem like a scary proposition, but it's also a tremendous opportunity. It offers us a chance to remake ourselves and our society. But first we need to acknowledge the moment for real change that stands so clearly before us.

12 comments:

Jena Isle said...

How right you are Francis, I have to agree with you.

The Christian doctrines that we purport to assimilate and inculcate in ourselves are lost once we get out of the sanctuary of the church.

I remember Nietzche trying to motivate us-Christians to "act out" our beliefs , to allow religion to become evident in our lives. The sad part is most of us don't learn from the wisdom of these noted philosophers. Most of us still associate success with a good career and material affluence.

This is also evident in the educational system; oftentimes students are asked why they have enrolled in a particular course and the answer most often would be because of the promise of a lucrative job and great financial rewards later on.

I don't excuse myself from these transgressions; I have also been guilty of it several times in the past. I'm thankful that I could accept that fact and could therefore work on eradicating it slowly from my system. I know it would be a lifetime challenge for me, but I won't give up. I try my best to cling to that thin thread of spirituality which is still gasping for breath inside me.

With your indulgence, I would like to end my comment by mentioning what a friend of mine-Amrit - said, that powerful nations call them selves highly progressive, but is it really the case? The deterioration of the basic, universal values and virtues that the forefathers had passed from on generation to another are now being questioned and put aside in the name of progress. so are humans really progressing? The answer lies in each individual.

Thanks for that very enlightening post Francis, it reminds me of the truly significant things in life that I should focus on.

Kudos to you!

Jena Isle said...

I mean NIETZSCHE, the keypads ...lol..have a blessed weekend.

Jena Isle said...

Hello Francis,

I made use of your drawing - layered waves- at associated content in thie URL http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1435574/layered_love.html?cat=42

Thanks for allowing me to use it. I'll be posting it also in my blog next week. I'll use your ghost drawing next week too.

Le merci et a une bonne journée.

Unknown said...

Hi Francis. I have been wondering recently whether we will have to change as we go through the current economic crisis. I've seen so much change happen so swifly over my lifetime and, like so many others, I think not all of it is good.

I would love to see a return to true Christian values or perhaps Bhuddist values, although then we'd all have to go vegetarian, and those in the meat industry would suffer.

That of course is just one tiny detail in a topic that is immense. I admire you for getting the ball rolling on these infinitesimal sbjects.

Francis Scudellari said...

@Jena Thanks for the very thoughtful comment. Powerful country's need to be much more consistent about their behavior matching their public professed beliefs, as Amrit said. And thanks for using the drawing ... I always appreciate the added exposure :).

@Jakill I think people are going to be forced to reassess a lot of things during the economic crisis, which probably won't improve for quite a while. I guess that's a silver lining to the pain involved.

Fiendish said...

I am so left-wing both socially and economically that any contribution I make to the discussion will necessarily be *totally* biased, but here goes.

The economically-developed countries of the US and Western Europe have long had an excuse to reject outright Communism: they tried it in Soviet Russia, and it failed. This failure hast traditionally been so tied up with the tyranny of various Communist regimes that it has become difficult to assess even democratic socialism as a plausible economic theory.

What I hope our society sees in the current crisis is a failure of capitalism. It is not the complete failure, but a failure, and an important one. It is derived from inherent flaws in capitalism itself, and it demonstrates the need for political reassessment of other economic structures.

I'm not suggesting Communism is doable. It's not doable. But as we've just proven - on a huge and frightening scale - neither is deregulated free-market capitalism.

So here's to achieving a better balance, then.

Francis Scudellari said...

@Fiendish I don't think any past ideology is going to suit our new situation completely. I do think we'll take bits and pieces of what works well, and mix in new ideas as well. There are folks who will continue to fight to preserve the status quo, no matter how bad things get. They're too fond of their current position on top. The rest of us need to be much more open to the possibilities.

Bobby Revell said...

I would argue that Jesus is not a real person as is a myth--therefore had no lessons to teach other than the same ones of previous cultures like Horus the Egyptian sun-god from which Jesus' persona was derived.

However, you're absolutely correct. Jesus' teachings were about being non-materialistic. It's funny how our society is largely materialistic while worshiping a man who walked the desert in a rags and had no job. In today's society we call that a homeless bum.

I'm all for a new modern ideology that benefits the people more. Of course that's already been tried numerous times and failed. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the whole of human kind would need a massive philosophical realization--and people are far too lazy to worry about it. People think we elect a new president and things will automatically change. They vote and forget about it only to blame him (or her) for every single failure. We need an entirely new government...and I mean change everything not just warm bodies.

I admit I'm cynical about government and so far am extremely disappointed by Obama's first so-called stimulus. It's no better than the bush bail-outs. I believe in individualism not communitarianism--but my opinion can change if it were proven to actually work:)

Anonymous said...

Ok, now that I have put behind me a paper that had taken all my time and energy I can focus on this post of yours my friend. I certainly don't want to get into a rhetorical argument over Christs words...I don't have enough space or time to do that here. But rest assured, His words are hardly ambiguous. People chose to interpret any words of wisdom to their advantage so they can justify their actions and circumstances. It's not the church that compartmentalizes but the individual who does so. Now, to make this short.(We could discus this at length some other time).
I agree with most of your analysis in this post. However, I am a realist. You assume that everyone would benefit from the idea of remaking ourselves and our society. But that is too idealistic. The good thing about humanity is that we are each, everyone one of us, individuals, capable of individual thought. What do you do with the profit seekers? The hate mongers? The saboteurs? Those that run contrary to your idea of a perfect world order. Do we throw them in jail? Yes I agree that profit-seeking is undermining the integrity of all our essential institutions...but at the same time I abhor the socialistic notion of "all for one and one for all", the common good. Invariable it always fails because of the human character. Unless we provide lobotomy's for everyone I cannot possible see a future like you are hoping for. Ensuring an equality of opportunity for all to contribute; serving the greater good; rewarding honesty and accountability... Don't get me wrong Francis. I admire these qualities but I'm afraid they are all altruistic, to simple in their approach to "fixing" the world order of things. Yes our current system fails. As long as there is the concept of currency, we will never get away from all the evils that derive from it. But what I do know, is that a profit based system always corrects itself. Seems like we are on the cusp of one right now. But it is hardly the world catalyst needed to adopt a new way of thinking.

As always Francis, a very thought provoking and stimulating, and often times frustrating post. I would love to give you more time on this but am caught up in the demands of this world :-)
Take care.
~JD

Francis Scudellari said...

@Bobby I agree that the problem is structural, and no one individual is going to fix what ails this system. I remain hopeful but skeptical about Obama's ability to change things ... time will tell.

@JD First of all, I never actually advocated socialism. I'm proposing that we seek out a new system that fits both our ideals and the realities of a world changed by technology. Socialism was an ideology constructed during the Industrial era and will also fail if applied to the new conditions. As to the fact that we are individuals with our own minds, that's very true. But the problem is the affects of extreme individualism are just as damaging to a society as those of extreme communalism. What we need is balance, and ascribing to the idea that humans are inherently greedy is a cop out that has been used as an alibi to maintain that this is the best system we can come up with. I refuse to believe that, and I have much more faith in the goodness of the human spirit than the cynics who have propagated that very harmful idea. Taking a very realistic approach, this system is failing and does not work for billions of people around the world. It's being propped up to benefit a very small minority, and it will either collapse under it's own weight or we'll replace it with something with a much more fundamentally sound base. As to your question about what to do with people who don't "go along" ... I don't really understand what you mean. It would be no different than any social order. You set limits on people as to what is acceptable behavior (laws) and those are the preconditions for participating in the society. The problem with the current system is that it actually rewards anti-social behaviors. And there are plenty of people who don't benefit from it, just ask the millions in prison, the millions unemployed, the millions without health care, the millions without a chance for a decent education. I'd say creating a system that allows those folks to participate at a fuller level but may cost the absurdly rich a chance to pad their billion dollar bank account isn't an unfair trade-off. I don't believe the system will correct itself. It's dying, not ill. But that's just my own opinion :).

Anonymous said...

Francis
I can see this would lead to very spirited conversation...unjustified by the confines of the comments section of a blog. All I am simply saying is this:

Human nature will ultimately sabotage the ideal you are seeking. Unlike you, I do not have faith in the goodness of the human spirit. The evil (whatever you want to call it) is pervasive amongst all societies in the world. Has this been perpetuated by a capitalistic society? Not likely. Mankind is corrupt. I am one of those cynics who believe this. If in my belief I have somehow propagated this idea, whether the idea is harmful or not, then so be it.

Also, you may not have advocated socialism but to me, what you speak of has a socialist flavor. I am aware that it is an ideology constructed during the industrial age but how does that change its basic premise? Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. Is that not what you are talking about when you state ... ensuring an equality of opportunity for all to contribute; serving the greater good ... ?

Anyways Francis we could go on and on LOL. I for one really don't have the time (though I would love to) to question or argue the various topics you have brought up by this post. I will however say that even as a cynic I still wish to see mankind succeed. And as always great post and great responses. OK, let's get out that other bottle of wine.
~JD

Francis Scudellari said...

@JD Agreed ... we could go back and forth on this one for a while, so let's move on to the next one. I've still got several left in this series, so we don't want to waste too much energy here :).