The first of May: Power, Legitimacy and Urgency

It’s the first of May and I am sitting in my office even though we have the day off. To get into my building I had to step over several union banners laying on the ground, ready to be taken to the official annual rally. I felt something like pride when I saw these committed people waiting to start announcing their demands. They could have just stayed at home and had a lazy morning, drinking coffee but they decided to put themselves out there. And I did feel a bit bad that I was ignoring this “Labor Day” and going to work but I am just not the rallying type. Apart from all the vandalism and violence that usually co-occurs on this day, I think it is good that workers use this day to say what they think they are entitled to. For at least one day a year it gives total legitimacy and power to the stakeholder employee and the “worker” in general. I think it is also a kind of celebration of the rights we do have here: Right of unions, freedom of association, right to strike, freedom of speech and so on.

 

When glancing over to Bangladesh, globally there is still an extremely long way to go. The claims workers have in Dhaka are not only legitimate but also very urgent. When a house is actually built on sand, shows obvious cracks, workers knowing about this danger but still going to work because they are worried to lose their job they are so dependent on, the disastrous absence of their power is evident. Yesterday the people of Dhaka went out on the street to demonstrate their anger. Demonstration and strike is their only means to counteract on their lack of power in hope to find leverage of their claims through other parties.

Looking out of the window I can see all the different concerns the people have. The concerns are not just about work, but about people living together as a society in general. Even though I don’t share all of the opinions and many demands are much too extreme for my taste, I want to go along. Here is my demonstration: People should take responsibility for what they do. Businesses should take responsibility for what they do. Not only power and urgency, but also legitimacy of claims should guide the way. Only by respecting and treating others as human beings and not as abstract figures in a long value chain can we work together to mutually create value for people.

Vanessa McSorley

How Economic Individualism leads to Anarchy. And a possible Way Out

In Thomas Hobbes’ (1588-1679) prominent state of nature every individual fights against all other individuals. Each individual does so to survive: When I kill my neighbor he can no more steal my belongings or kill me, I am consequently safer now. Hobbes’ state of nature is an individualism-based condition of anarchy: Neither laws nor governments nor any form of contracts exist. His ultimate objective is to find ways to leave or avoid this condition.

 

The individualistic concept was new then and characterizes many schools of thought in the modern period. Among others, the neoclassical theories in economic sciences of the 20th century generally rely on the methodological individualism. Each individual aims to rationally maximize its utility accordingly.

Through neoliberal politics these theories were implemented in many countries in the last 30 years: The transfer of theoretical concepts like the methodological individualism was essentially (although not exclusively) transferred and supported by such politics into the real world. Today, they structure to large parts the perception of how the economy functions and what it is in reality. This thinking is also based on competition because others are understood as (potential) competitors. The assumption of this politics of deregulation was that market-ruled competition alone establishes the most effective and efficient solutions.

 

Yet, individualism (as also competition) is not bad per se. Every one of us is an individual and it is nothing else than self-evident that individual rights need to be protected. But, the methodological individualism as the one of economic provenience was implemented at the cost of the community. In Switzerland e.g. voluntary community work is strongly decreasing (e.g. there are less football coaches for children). People are too busy with their individual job career and want to score (financially) in their personal competitive game.

 

The strong individualism of today may be seen as a kind of a global state of nature. Some examples: The exploitation of workers and local communities by transnational corporations is fostered by political deregulation and missing cooperative global governance structures: Responsibility is left often to individual managers; because of removing or not establishing regulation it is often made easy for managers of firms to enrich themselves excessively. Conversely, single individuals can trigger shitstorms against firms by posting individually declared violations of political correctness in the social media. And, as mentioned, voluntary community work is decreasing. The neoliberal politics of deregulation thus led at least partly to conditions which for Hobbes were imperative to leave in place.

 

A possible way to balance the corrosive consequences of such overreaching (economic) individualism on communities is that we, the civil society, begin rebuilding voluntary, non-market based cooperation between us citizens. A stronger togetherness between neighbors and friends etc. can foster the creation of values that provide a whole society meaning and vision. The economy can rediscover its role in and for society by cooperating more seriously with and for stakeholders.

 

Of course humans are competition-oriented individuals but they are also cooperative and social beings needing mutual value and meanings. The sociologist Richard Sennett and communitarianists often write about the importance of cooperation and togetherness in civil societies. And the stakeholder theory explains the advantages and appropriateness of an economy understanding itself more as a part of society and related to stakeholders.

 

 

Claude Meier

The Power of Positive Motivation In various messages at the turn of the year, the sense of community was mentioned as the primary basis for society, which needs again to be promoted in order to counterbalance self-interest as the mainspring of human behavior. When a person concentrates on his self-interest, as foreseen in the concept of human beings as homo oeconomicus, then he is mainly concerned with himself and his needs. Others very quickly become rivals. In his professional life he is motivated to use his knowledge and ability to earn as much money as possible, so as to better satisfy his own needs.  According to a popular expression, “The more he has, the more he wants.” If, however, our understanding of human beings causes us to see our relations with others as being of primary importance, then we will carry our knowledge and ability into our relationships. In this way, knowledge and ability can be combined innovatively and developed. In this context Erich Fromm distinguishes between active and passive motivation, and emphasizes that human beings need to interact with other human beings primarily with active and not only with passive "motivation." Passive motivation focuses on controlling an interaction, for instance to protect property. The output of these interactions can be described as "having." In contrast, active motivation considers "being" as "process, activity and movement." Fromm describes motivation as an activity between two human beings as follows: "He gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of his sadness – of all expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him." (Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. New York, NY: Harper & Row, p.24). With respect to knowledge, Fromm offers the following examples to contrast active and passive motivation within human interaction: "Having knowledge is taking and keeping possession of available knowledge (information); knowing is functional and serves only as a means in the process of productive thinking." (Fromm, E. (1997) To Have or to Be? London: Continuum, p. 33). In our studies of stakeholder relations in practice, we found numerous examples in which Fromm’s concept of positive motivation led to innovative, new solutions. (See chapter 7, Sachs, Rühli 2011). The basis of this motivation is the desire to respect and understand and thereby to replace going solo with a sense of community. Sybille Sachs