Challenge of the abstract

Since money became the normal medium of exchange, financials have led the critical thinking process.  Tangibles like income growths have made sense, while anything more abstract is considered impractical. With numerous financial downturns, realization dawns that to ignore abstract processes is to overlook their strong motivational forces.

The error in financial thinking, authors perceive, has been in carrying forward assumptions – e.g., assuming the words ‘strategy’ and ‘plan’ to be synonymous. The difference they hold is that ‘plan’ concerns with mission statements, goals, and budgets, while ‘strategy’ should necessarily investigate the multiple factors causing environmental change. In other words, the former depend on standard received wisdom, and the latter is often called upon to break new ground.

Rumelt writes:

A real strategy is neither a document nor a forecast but rather an overall approach based on a diagnosis of a challenge. The most important element of a strategy is a coherent viewpoint about the forces at work, not a plan. Discerning the significance of these events is harder than recounting them.

He further illustrates the faulty thinking:

In the 1990s, for instance, IBM’s basic model of layering options and peripherals atop an integrated line of mainframe computers began to fail. Demand for computing was up, but IBM’s way of providing it was down. Likewise, newspapers are now in crisis as the Internet grabs their readers and ads. Demand for information and analysis is increasing, but traditional publishing vehicles have difficulty making money from it.

Businesses suffer from their short-term definitions of normalcy going south. Fact is the characteristics of normal transforms with time, and strategy should include most if not all its new possibilities. After every crisis, a new normal invariably arises to represent reality, different from what has gone before.

Davis writes:

The new normal will be shaped by a confluence of powerful forces—some arising directly from the financial crisis and some that were at work long before it began.

He also points out that increases in the number of college graduates, and the entry of women into the workforce have boosted incomes in the past few decades. He regards both these factors as one-time influences that are spent forces today.

Thinking along the lines of standard received wisdom fosters perceptions of the future as extensions of the past. End result: crisis. That means reality has undergone change, but perceptions remain entrenched in the past to render responses to challenges incohesive. The appropriate thinking strategy for the future, must factor in possible directions of change, to make sense in the future.

I rather believe that the greater fault in the utilitarian mode of thinking is to evaluate individual worth in monetary terms. People have become comfortable with the bottomline of money ruling all transactions. They audit others in cost-benefit terms as well, although factually, the diverse people issues that are thus left unresolved contribute more to business failure than do the numbers.

Further, human motivations are more complex and unpredictable than volatile markets may be. Now, it may be that education and employment for women have become commonplace enough to lose significance as contributing factors in financial circles. But in the abstract emotional mind, their effects may be in transition to influence behaviour at a later time.

For instance, in the more orthodox regions of the world, men have social worth as breadwinners; women as homemakers have none. The feminine gender brought up to forebear, have traditionally appeased the male ego in social equations. They have been diffident in interactions, overcome with embarrassment in public conflicts with men.

The tacit social expectation is of continuance of the conditioned behaviour. Even in matters as trivial as standing in a queue, men of the region tend to routinely cut in ahead of women, banking on their learned aversion to making a scene or drawing public attention to themselves.

Although various Parliaments invoke legislations to support the weaker gender, these measures appear to merely showcase the benevolent patronage of women. In India, for instance, a bill to reserve a third of Parliamentary seats for women has been introduced. Political parties are under duress to field women candidates, and their leaders promote the candidature their own female relatives for the posts. The obvious intent is to retain governing control as puppeteer behind the scenes.

Women in these societies need to confront head on the social learning of their second-class citizenship. The point is women’s attitudes to work and relationships are yet evolving from thinking about assertiveness to acting upon it. In small strident measures, the educated and employed fractions have begun to question men taking for granted the social inequality. We may expect the emergence of a new trend when the silent majority absorbs this need for change.

In the more liberal Western nations, political leaders are also prone to utilizing gimmicks to centralize power. Reporting on party plans to raise female electoral support in UK, Street Porter writes:

Yvette Cooper, with her new no-nonsense hairdo, won plenty of coverage for her speech at the Labour Conference last week and was even referred to as a potential new leader - you can hear Labour spin doctors hard at work promoting this fantasy scenario, which is as likely as her husband Ed Balls running my local yoga centre … Cameron says he plans to increase the number of women in key posts in his team. A recently leaked policy document written by existing advisers was full of laughable suggestions about how to win our votes. A drinks party at No. 10 to celebrate successful females in business? How patronising is that!?

She writes further: 

Justine Thornton (a successful barrister) is now reduced to being touted like a handbag on the arm of hubbie Ed Miliband, styled in a non-controversial High-Street frock, and forced to endure the ghastly ritual of the 'Conference kiss' in the full glare of the media. Ed even gets his cleaning lady to wash the family car. Cameron is no better. When he held a barbecue for President Obama in Downing Street, the macho men cooked the meat while Sam Cam was reduced to dishing out the salad! 

Financial analysts call for change in the thinking process as essential to prevent further financial crises. Human factor analysts need to advocate the same, because the strategy with humans seems to remain in continuity with attitudes of a bygone era. In issues of gender and culture, historical stereotypes and prejudices are readily invoked in place of actually understanding the present. 

However, although it seems absurd to apply financial terms to people issues, there is one notable exception. Housewives, who live with more inequality than others precisely because no remuneration is involved in their social contributions, need this evaluation. These women have also learned to devalue their own worth. They tend to say they do nothing when asked about their occupation, although unpaid and unappreciated, they carry the brunt of responsibility for managing the household and raising the children.

Luhabe, a woman entrepreneur from South Africa, recommends that stay-at-home moms should be given 10% of their husbands' earnings at the least, so that the choice to be a housewife is not not made with resentment.

As Curnow quotes her view:

"And money is the currency that we use to define value of a contribution to the world, so why shouldn't we do the same for the work of bringing up children, which I think is probably the most important contribution that the world should be valuing." 

This idea would definitely resonate with all women around the world saddled with marital and familial responsibilities! Traditionally, the homemaker earns little respect and appreciation for the caring services they freely dispense around the clock. In having to pay up, husbands, and etc., would be compelled to value woman’s work by the same standards they value their own.

Dominant social groups continue to think, plan and act in the same old ways expecting to prolong the status quo advantageous to them.  In this process, to either recycle stereotypes or to perceive people as commodities becomes habit hard to break.

Factors thought to be insignificant in finance, may be highly significant in the emotional world of people. In discounting this fact, the understanding of reality remains skewed. The thinking about people needs to change drastically, and be distinct from financial thought, because the abstract challenges of Diversity are far too formidable to ignore.

References for this post:

1. Curnow, Robyn. “Why women need a 'mommy's salary'” cnn.com. CNN. October 13, 2011.  
2. Davis, Ian. “The new normal” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. MARCH 2009. 
3. Rumelt, Richard P. “Strategy in a ‘structural break’” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. DECEMBER 2008. 
4. Street Porter, Janet. “Women don't want fluffy gimmicks - we want power!” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 3^rd October 2011. 

The issue with Lookism

Although, in the present age, political correctness demands support for merit, the social preference for beauty continues around the world. Women especially have been caught up with carrying the social standards forward, as their self-esteem often depends on others’ approval. Physicality seems to become an equal-opportunity issue in  organizations in the West. However, lookism – that is, prejudice based on appearance – may be hard to prove in Diversity.

Women perceived aesthetically challenged attest that they have a harder time with social acceptance than their more physically endowed peers. Sharing her own humiliating experiences, Sibary asserts that good looks open doors, literally and metaphorically. She writes:

I may as well put a bin bag over my head for all the impact my face has … I recently went on holiday with an old school friend to celebrate our joint 40th birthdays. She is single, blonde and very attractive. Throughout our trip, men were holding doors open for her (and then letting them swing in my face); carrying her bag, but ignoring mine; and falling over themselves to buy her drinks and apply her sun lotion. 

Many women that might themselves have memories of being left on the shelf focus on forcing beauty treatments onto their baby girls. The little ones are taught to strut their stuff, and wear fake body parts, fake tan and botox if only to get ahead. Oblivious to possible psychological repercussions in future, the mothers believe that their daughters will thank them for their efforts to make them ‘stars’ before they learn the R’s. But for the moment, reality shows featuring toddlers beauty pageants owe their success to this relentless maternal drive to render advantage to their offspring at any cost.

Theorists imagine a beauty-related continuum in the social psyche, bound at the ends by two aesthetic poles – maximum unattractiveness (or ugliness) at the negative pole, and maximum attractiveness (or beauty) at the positive pole. Tietje and Cresap explain the significance of the poles:

Being judged to be at the negative pole is an aesthetic variant of … stigma: an immediately recognizable abnormal trait that works subliminally to turn others away and thus break social claims. Being judged to be at the positive pole is aesthetic charisma … is perceived to be a divine gift and … “star quality.”

Now, few people actually place at the poles, and most of the population occupies the middle of the imaginary line. People’s social worth then appears to be graded according to the subjective perception of the reality behind the appearance.

Perhaps as a consequence of the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, beauty has been stereotypically associated with productivity. Matrimonial matchmakers seemingly with a finger on the social pulse, advise women to dumb down on the one hand, and on the other, to raise their attractiveness quotient in order to ensnare rich, eligible men.

Unattractive people can expect poor treatment even if they work hard at developing personality because assumptions about beauty are hard-wired into people’s brains through evolution. In social research tests conducted, men were shown pictures of beautiful women while their brain activity was monitored with MRI imaging. The results, Stossel reports, are that:

… the same part of the brain lights up as when a hungry person sees food, or a gambler eyes cash, or a drug addict sees a fix. Essentially, beauty and addiction trigger the same areas in the brain.

Both visualization of beauty and the substances of addiction activate pathways to the brain’s reward centres. In each case, the respective individuals anticipate pleasurable experiences.

A litigious trend in the West rests on lookism, with complainants demanding measures against looks-based inequality in the workplace. Tietje and Cresap explain the serious implications of the practice:

According to recent labor-market research, attractiveness receives a premium and unattractiveness receives a penalty. For both men and women, results “suggest a 7–9-percent penalty for being in the lowest 9 percent of looks among all workers, and a 5-percent premium for being in the top 33 percent.”

Now, although any form of discrimination is unjust, it seems to me that the hurdles in establishing lookism as a discriminatory process increase with social diversity. 

Fact is people of a particular culture imbibe notions of beauty in collective social learning from their own earlier generations. Their subsequent evaluations are subjective associations with standards imbibed within the community. With little experience or ideation of standards outside of those racial and cultural boundaries, their beauty judgements of diversity must also be ineffective. Hence, for charges of lookism to stick, homogeneity is required for comparisons.

Consciously or unconsciously, people give much attention to the visage in interpretations of beauty and worth. Research shows that three areas of the brain are activated when people recognize or identify faces. However, the neural activities of these areas diminish when the faces are perceived alien. These signify the lack of recognition and identifications, which may indeed underlie culture clashes.

Presented with facial structures of other cultures, people not only have difficulty distinguishing one picture from another, latent prejudices may also become activated. For example, the ‘white’ community may perceive its members educated and successful, while more readily associating people of colour with lack of education and crime.

The stereotypical judgements of people extend to include the clothes they wear. A study with ambiguous faces (i.e., those not clearly categorized racially) pictured the models dressed in various types of clothing. A BBC report on the study says:

Faces were more likely to be seen as white when dressed smartly and black when in overalls … "[The results]... imply that our cultural knowledge, and what we are expecting to see stereotypically, can literately change what we do see in other people" … decisions about race or gender or age change the way we feel about people and affect the way we interact and behave towards them.

Clearly, people judge by the cultural standards and attitudes they have been brought up on. For instance, the socio-religious significance of the enveloping female attire, the burqa, to the Muslim community, is lost on the Western world. Post 9/11, the dress has been stigmatized, and some governments have approved its ban, perceiving it a symbol of terrorism.

Although there are myriad instances of demeaning preferences for ‘beauty’ within every social group, cross-cultural lookism would be hard to establish. This because social diversity has not yet developed common, rational standards of looks, and social judgements and interactions based on them continues to be subjective. In one demographic fraction, beauty may be perceived in veiled women blending unobtrusively into the traditional community. Elsewhere, women in revealing attire underscoring freedom from traditions may be deemed hot and sexy. Each group may accuse the other of lookism, but their evaluative contexts differ.

Swamped with differences of race and culture, ‘beauty’ means different things to different people. The effect of globalization has been social heterogeneity, and obviously differing beauty standards for physical structures, colour and clothes remain within the diverse social groups. In a multicultural society, discrimination on looks may be indistinguishable from that of race and culture.


References for this post: 

1. “Clothes influence race perception” bbc.co.uk. BBC News. 28 September 2011. 
2. Dumas, Daisy. “’No harm was done’: Mother defends dressing daughter, three, as prostitute for Toddlers and Tiaras beauty pageant” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 7th September 2011. 
3. Greenaway, Naomi. “Why experts say it’s harmful to tell your little girl she’s pretty” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 27th July 2011.
4. “How the brain recognises a face” bbc.co.uk. BBC News. 13 December 2004. 
5. Sibary, Shona. “How I’ve learnt to accept feeling ugly: With startling honesty, one woman describes how her looks have affected her life” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 8th September 2011. 
6. Stossel, John. “The Ugly Truth About Beauty Like It or Not, Looks Do Matter” shortsupport.org. ABC News.com. August 23, 2011. 
7. Tietje, Louis and Cresap, Steven. “IS LOOKISM UNJUST? THE ETHICS OF AESTHETICS AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS” mises.org. JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES. JL VOLUME 19, NO. 2 (SPRING 2005): 31-50. 

What women's dreams foretell

Feminine groups around the world seem to develop organically, and rather like Nature, lack definitive organization. Any exercise to discover the trends finds more diversity. But where they are similar is in dreams. Women’s nighttime experiences are universally vivid and memorable. I imagine dreams are the unconscious confirmation that, beneath diverse surfaces, women are the same.

Everett reports that dream episodes display distinct gender differences. She writes: 

I often dream I'm searching for something in an old, crumbling house, or discovering abandoned rooms in my childhood home. Occasionally, the dreams will become nightmares, featuring bereavement, murder or terrifying chases up spiral staircases. By contrast, my husband tends to have dreams so dull he either doesn’t remember them, or recounts such gems as: ‘I was waiting to buy a new printer cartridge and the receptionist told me to take a seat.' 

Some authors pin women’s remembering dreams on their gender training. Women are taught from childhood to be emotionally attentive, because the maintenance of relationships depends on them. They may thus continue to hone soft skills during sleep, which they recall during wakefulness.

Some other studies seek to explain dreams as the nature of women, the product of the genetic makeup. They are perceived the result of periods of heightened hormonal activity and body temperature. Hence, female hormones contribute to the extreme action categories, the most aggressive dreams appearing in the premenstrual period and in pregnancy.

In my view, and because menopausal women also report similar dreams, rising tides of female hormones during the menstrual cycle may not be solely responsible for nightmares. Instead, violent dreams could stem directly from unresolved stress carried over into sleep states. Thence, they are normal in stressful environments, for women of all ages. Especially in Asia and Africa, where traditions impose on them a secondary status, education is denied them, and female infanticide gets tacit social support. The female gender must serve and obey, while men take all decisions, and boys as young as ten police sisters and mothers.

This uncertainty of being itself would naturally disturb sleep patterns far beyond hormonal biorhythms and learning of gender roles. Their constant need for vigilance would take toll on mind and body, preventing the women from relaxing even at nighttime. Because of the dominations they are constantly subjected to, dreams amongst women trapped in traditions, would be no more than reality revisited.

Across the world, post-feminist women are able to exercise personal choice similar to men. These women have distanced from the choices of their mothers in relationships. They have equated the institution of marriage with gender discriminations of the past. They have sought to be in charge of their own lives, and to negate traditional social learning with liberal new outlooks of self-reliance.

Greenfield writes:

My parents had a terrible marriage, with my father working away a lot and my mother at home with six children, growing increasingly resentful. … it has made me reluctant not just to marry, but to commit fully to a relationship. I’ve always kept a bit back, never daring to make myself financially or emotionally vulnerable.

The women have rendered the marital piece of paper redundant for their chosen lifestyle, investing instead in the lifelong commitment to a shared future. They have preferred to pour energies into having a lovely home, good friends and happy children with their partners, eschewing legalities.

It would then seem logical to assume that liberal environments would largely diminish the dreams, because the extreme stresses ease. Women that have resolved gender issues, and gained equality in the social interface, should also experience male-type change in their dream sequences.

However, in any part of the world, and at any age, women’s continue to dream vividly. Why? I should think that, rather like old wine in a new bottle, the perceived social change remains superficial. Women wanting to escape from the pains of the past have been unable to adequately define equality. The choices taken, based on faulty conceptualization, do little to alleviate traditional fears of vulnerability. And thus generate the unconscious stresses that continue to express in terrifying dreams.

For instance, although Greenfield chooses to live radically different from her mother, her life pans out similar. She becomes precisely what she had sought to avoid – the single parent saddled with child responsibilities. The woman is now left unsupported, while the father of her children, and her soulmate of so many years walks out on the family, citing her lack of respect for him as his reason for doing so.

With the wisdom of hindsight, Greenfield writes:

One thing I do know is this: it’s far easier to separate when you are not married than it is if you are. For a start, there are no lawyers involved. All you have to do is say ‘I want out’, and off you go, which is surely the main reason co-habiting couples are more likely to split up than those who are married.

Many Western women that likewise free themselves of social weddings find out too late that cohabitation does not change mindsets. Their familial responsibilities do not reduce; in the absence of marriage, the increase is manifold. Surveys confirm that the incidence of “divorce” is more than twice higher amongst cohabitating couples when compared with those legally married. 

Post-feminist women may be missing the forest for the trees in their evaluations. The haste to achieve "gender equality" actually hurts women in the future. They appear more focused on the exercise of choice, than to think through all its possible outcomes. Like, its effect on their partners. When the public affirmation of marriage vows is omitted from the equation, men are provided convenient windows of escape as the novelty of the partnerships wane. It is clear that all parties are not on the same page - the men do not perceive oral agreements of long-term commitments as binding.

Firstly, because men are brought up to identify with organization, women’s decisions to step outside of it earn neither respect nor compliance. Secondly, in an organized society, the institution of marriage needs to be appropriately organized too. Rather than demolish the institution of marriage itself, women need to push for changes in legislation that support them. Finally, social ceremonies confirm the social contract; else the individual becomes isolated, outside the social purview. Errant partners are far more likely to conform with pressure from the collective, than to respond to the entreaties of individual women.

Perhaps the point expressed in dreams is that for the women, the habits of dependence persist despite the modern notions of equality. Women have wanted others to be different, but within their self, attitudes resist change. Women anywhere in the world are yet to centre in their universe. Despite “equality”, they continue to perceive themselves as satellites, nurturers and caregivers romantically awaiting rescue from their own decisions while suffering the extreme stress their dreams foretell, just as their sisters under the skin do elsewhere.

References for this post:

1. Everett, Flic. “Why women's dreams are much wilder than men's... who often don't remember them because they are so dull” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 14th September 2011. 
2. Greenfield, Louise. “Like many co-habitees, Louise dismissed marriage as 'just a piece of paper'. Now she admits it would've kept her family from falling apart” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 15^th September 2011. 

The socialist attitude

Perceptions of socialist attitudes tend to the negative, especially in the West. The assumptions may be of some sort of discrimination against creative enterprise nurtured in poverty-stricken populations. However, the socialistic slogan generally attributed to Karl Marx: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need may actually owe its origins to the 'right' - the moral teachings from religious discourse of times gone by! 

In response to the socialist attitude perceived in our posts on the London riots, a reader comments: 

In my opinion most people, who start life with very little, have a socialist attitude that says “those that have should give some of it to everyone else (me)”.

In societies used to outlooks of individualistic enterprise, the thought may conjure up visions of large groups of poor people feeding off other groups in parasitic existence.  The  socialist attitude would then appear to sponsor the maintenance of poverty, facilitating hooliganism and apathy to honest labour. 

The reader also writes: 

As people earn more and get a better standard of living and more possessions their opinion tends to move to the right and they then think “those who have a lot more than me should share it BUT I don’t think I should share what I have worked for with those who don’t work”.

In other words, with the gradual accumulation of personal possessions, people's interests also change, turning to self at the expense of society. I should think the larger a social organisation is, the more it needs to subscribe to certain socialistic values, if only to keep the collective together in harmony. People that live in society, rich and poor, have certain duties to the collective, in the same way that members of a family are responsible for its identity and organization. 

Democratic societies with formidable Diversity, like India for instance, have had to incorporate these values into their Constitution, assuring justice, liberty, equality and fraternity to all members within its fold. That means to carry the entirety forward to a new level of competence irrespective of caste, creed, colour and class. That also means to decrease divides between diverse social groups, and to fail to do so is to fail democracy. 

Psychologist Adler perceived the balance between social interest and self-interest, crucial for harmony. Since none can exist in isolation, people join with other people of similar background, employment, or status to form social groups. Groups co-exist with other groups, having interrelationships for the same reason, essentially to help themselves. 

Kronemyer explains:

“Social interest” … translates as “community feeling,” as opposed to one’s private interests or concerns. … If one has social interest then one evidences or enacts a “useful” style of life. If one does not have social interest then one is self-absorbed and is concerned only with one’s self. Such a style of life is “useless.”

With overt preoccupations with own wants and expectations, people desensitise to the needs of others in the same universe. In coping with the daily stresses of being in the world, they prefer to adopt the selfish style of living. It should be of no surprise then that within the prevailing sense of individualism in a rapidly complicating world, many more people believe that they alone should enjoy the fruits of labours. 

The concentrated devotion to owning more possessions, tilts the balance towards self-interest at the expense of social interest, and ultimately leads to the ethical bankruptcy witnessed in recent times. In many parts of the world, the powers-that-be as well as groups lower on the social hierarchy appears to thus lose their moral compass. 

In the community living of Christian apostles centuries earlier that the scriptures provide glimpses of, the so-called socialistic values seem to be upheld in their fair distribution among the ordinary people in society. In Acts 4, it says:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common… There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

It seems logical to infer therefore that, when individuals and groups share resources between them respectfully, neither question of resource control nor of unmet needs arise. True, the simplicity of the earlier times has been lost in the complexities of the present day. However, much of the change in people’s minds from then to now has been in negativity. Attitudes have not expanded to encompass Diversity, but have instead shrunk to in-groups, and competitive self-interest.

The Parable of the Bags of Gold (Matthew 25:14-30) provides insight into an effective process of harnessing abilities that could be relevant even today. It says:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

The master of the house in the parable was fully cognisant of the differential abilities of his employees. Present day wisdom might have advised investing all of his wealth in schemes guaranteeing maximum returns. But rather than simply boost the bottomline for himself alone, the man in power opted to provide opportunity to all his workers in accordance to their individual abilities, and share the proceeds of their work with them. 

The point is the socialist attitude does not demand doles, but exhorts those blessed with privilege to talent manage those less fortunate. Over the centuries of their existence, the scriptures have taught no different. On his return from the journey, the master in the parable rewarded each person proportionate to the labour they put in. The man that not only did no work, he further justified his action with presumptions that the employer's profit sources were dubious, got not reward but punishment for his brand of selfishness. 

In the context of the riots in London, criminal activity should indeed be dealt with in accordance to law. However, the punishments should fit the crimes. Prejudicial judgements, concerned solely with exercising power, usher in retribution, not justice. The organizational machinery has the positional clout to to make development happen; they perhaps need the will to bring outlying groups into mainstream. 

Similarly, to help others help them achieve their targets, it behoves businesses to also invest in social development; however very few do. When focused on the bottomline, corporate bodies tend to become insensitive to both people and environment. In the drive for immediate gains, they refuse to consider the future effects of depletion of natural resources. They forget that they are dependent on people within and outside the company for their survival; profit making is a distant dream unless goods and services are sold and bought.

In earlier posts on this site, on the effects of businesses reneging on their corporate social responsibility (CSR), we wrote:

The abuse of resources by production and manufacturing houses, like the indiscriminate release of industrial wastes into rivers, toxic gases polluting the air and thinning the ozone layer, have been implicated in global warming, changing climate patterns and new diseases. Indiscriminate hunting has also endangered many animal species … Multinational corporations (MNCs) have at opportunity, flouted human rights and environmental concerns in developing nations… 

Perhaps prophetically, we also wrote about a year ago, that:

Business and political compulsions have created the “conflicts” that divide people. The single-minded pursuit of advantage has retarded healthy development in human relations. It has instead borne bitter fruit – us-and-them polarizations on the basis of race, religion and culture, and vengeful reactivity. The privileged have grown richer and greedier while the poor, more disadvantaged and resentful. The accumulated negativity displays in their eagerness to embrace any cause that advocates the removal of perceived “inequalities” through violence.

In the present context of the outpouring of reactive violence, it seems clear that social interest has all but died as ethical bankruptcy becomes socially generalized. The connivance of corporate and political circles accentuates divides creating polarized groups of haves and have-nots in terms of privilege and opportunity. 

The unhealthy competition for resources raises inter-group tensions, mistrust and perceptions of social inequality. Leaders in democracies need to resurrect the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity in social dealings. If they are to forestall the growing disgruntlement spiralling into anarchy, they need to encourage citizenship amongst all groups of society, political, corporate and others. 

References for this post: 

1. “Chapter 4. Life in the Christian Community” usccb.org 

2. Kronemyer, David. “Alfred Adler’s Concept of “Social Interest”” phenomenologicalpsychology.com. Phenomenological Psychology. October 3rd 2009. 

3. The Diva. “CSR 3: The exercise of domination” thedivaatlarge.blogspot.com. TheDivaAtLarge. February 26, 2010. 

4. “The Parable of the Bags of Gold” biblegateway.com. BibleGateway.com. 

End of India’s democratic system?

Unrest is sweeping around the world rather like mass hysteria. After authoritarian regimes, democracies now face the heat. The question arises whether here the attempts of social groups are to uphold democratic freedoms, or to holdup systems to ransom.

The tidal wave of protests has now hit India. A section of civil society has chosen to confront the Union Government on it executive functioning. The social group, led by Anna Hazare and dubbed Team Anna in the media, demand the Parliament should make into law the anti-corruption bill they have drafted.

The practice in law making to date has been that civil servants draft bills at the behest of the ruling party. That bill is presented to Parliament and should it receive the majority vote of its members, it becomes law.

Writing in Time, Thottam comments:

It's not clear that the Lokpal bill would be much of an improvement. It's also hard to imagine how the world's largest democracy would function if it gave way every time a prominent protestor demanded a new piece of legislation.

Over 42 years, and despite eight bill presentations, however, successive Parliaments have failed to create a comprehensive anti-corruption law. Hence, Team Anna take it upon themselves to draft the Jan Lokpal Bill that seeks to appoint an ombudsman, and empower them to investigate corruptions charges at all levels of the bureaucracy.

Earlier, the civil society group did manage to compel the forming of a special panel of 5 ministers and 5 activists to discuss their bill draft. The aim is to arrive at a consensus on the bill to be presented to Parliament. But the talks stall over six sticking points. The Government then goes ahead to table before the House their own version, the Lokpal Bill, which effectively protects key positions from the investigative scrutiny.

Team Anna turns to street politics in the effort to garner support for their bill. They accuse the Administration of lacking the political will to tackle rampant corruption and protecting it, in fact. To protest the ineptitude, they announce a hunger strike to be launched publicly.

That earns a crackdown; perhaps the fear in accommodating them is of setting a dangerous precedent. Police swoop in with preemptive arrests of the protest leaders. About twelve hundred others are also detained to stamp out the imminent agitation.  Perhaps the Administration’s strategy is also influenced by events in London, where lawlessness ruled rife for several days. 

However, the move backfires, and is seen by the nation as heavy-handed stifling of dissent.  Two hours later, their release is offered on condition they eschew the agitation. Undaunted, the activists refuse to leave until their demands are met – of the right to conduct public dissent, and of the right to draft the legislation to be made law. Lodged in the Tihar Prison, they kick off their fast on the premises itself.

Meanwhile, news of the arrests sparks demonstrations all over the country. Thousands join in very vocal processions across states demanding their release. People in Delhi congregate around the jail as well, holding placards that read, please arrest me.

Unprecedented media coverage publicizes the events. Constant information feeds from private news channels add fillip to the cause. Tech savvy activists make the most use of the tools of Internet – twitter, facebook and youtube to ensure messages from prison reach the world. Their strategy seems to a step ahead, with the authorities having to play catch up.

74-year-old Anna Hazare, the man at the centre of the storm, was virtually unknown outside his home state earlier. He is now a national icon, and his supporters project him as the second Gandhi, leading the second freedom struggle of India through Satyagraha, the path of non-violence.

Reuters’ reporter de Bendern sees the makings of a revolt in the unrest, similar to elsewhere. He writes:

… a galvanised and frustrated middle class and the mushrooming of social networking sites combined with an aggressive private media may be transforming India's political landscape … "The new corporate middle class has little patience with the politics of dignity and identity that are -- for better or worse -- central to Indian politics"…

Perhaps the ruling coalition assumes that the stir will soon die down, as middle-class resolve tends to be tenuous.  They thus try initially to wait out the agitators’ fervour. But as passions whip up instead, party members resort to character assassinations of the social group’s leaders. They also claim them to be media creations set up to blackmail the Administration.

The unrest is branded a subversion of democracy, fronting the attack on the supremacy of the Indian Parliament by outsiders – including foreign powers. The Prime Minister labours to defend the matter in the House. He states:

The question is, who drafts the law and who makes the law? I submit that the time-honoured practice is that the Executive drafts a Bill and places it before Parliament and that Parliament debates and adopts the Bill with amendments if necessary. ... As far as I am able to gather, Shri Anna Hazare questions these principles and claims a right to impose his Jan Lok Pal Bill upon Parliament.

Opposition parties had earlier been kept out of the draft panel formed with the civil society. They now revel in the opportunity to take the Union Government to task over their mishandlings of the case. The use of force to deal with political issues earns flak as arrogance of power reminiscent of colonial times.

Satirists pounce gleefully to proclaim that in India today, people are free to graft or feed on bribes, but to fight corruption or even to not eat, they get no permission at all! In the public perception, the Government is elitist, disconnected with the masses they represent.

The erstwhile silent majority gravitates to displays of people’s power in metropolitan cities and smaller towns. In several parts of the country, entire villages, men, women and children take up the fast in solidarity with that at Delhi. Mumbai’s famed six-sigma food delivery organization, the Dabbawalas, strike work for the first time in 120 years to lend their support.

Before the ground swell of humanity, the system is forced to back down. The Delhi police withdraw all the 22 conditions they had earlier imposed, release the detainees, grant space for the protest gathering, and also assist in managing the crowds. The hunger strike now assumes the proportions of a populist movement. Politicians across the board begin to feel the pinch of adverse public opinion.

The activists further remind their audiences that the preamble of the Indian Constitution states that:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA … do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

That is, mention of the people comes first, precedes both parliamentarians and ministers in the Constitution. Essentially, the people are the supreme body, since their votes put the elected representatives in office. This perspective finds resonance with a population fed-up with political kickbacks, scams, and rampant corruption within the bureaucracy.  Social networks are abuzz with millions of supportive opinions and tweets, non-resident Indians joining in as well.

As the crowds grow mammoth rather than dwindle, ministers are caught in an unpleasant bind. They are as averse to decentralizing legislative control as they are to making Anna a martyr. The concern is the longer it takes to resolve the stalemate, the more the septuagenarian’s health weakens, and the more volatile becomes the situation.

They choose to extend an olive branch and invite dialogue. The talks begin, but the two sides are gulfed by enormous trust deficits between the governors and the governed. In the atmosphere of win-lose competitiveness, neither side is ready to unfreeze maximally polarized positions. They battle over democratic rights in the system, of the people versus elected office. Negotiations lurch from breakthrough to breakdown, to another breakthrough, another breakdown and again breakthrough…

Public statements are sometimes intractable, sometimes conciliatory, but furious activities continue behind the scenes. Mediators rush in from around the country to assist each side to keep back channels open and to unfreeze deadlocks. The former chief minister from Maharashtra, experienced in handling previous agitations in Anna’s home state, is called in as the Government’s special emissary to link directly with him.

Newscasters stationed at vantage points around the clock update reports with every new detail. Experts are called from all walks of life to analyze the nuances of move and explain their significances on the private news channels. Constitutionalists, lawyers, corporate stalwarts, authors, editors, social activists, spiritual leaders, politicians, and other celebrities - supporters, detractors and voices of moderation all share views from the same platform.

The entire country appears riveted by the drama playing out on tv. The game of brinkmanship is more thrilling than any soap opera – who will blink first? (The joke here is that Team India is hugely relieved that their disastrous performances on the cricket field in England is, for once, not the focus of public attention. They might hope their entire tour thus flies under the radar!)

During the negotiations, team compositions also change from hawkish to moderate, as the talks seem to progress at the pace of two steps forward and one back. With the forward motion, positions previously thought intractable peg down a notch. The general realization dawns that political issues do indeed require political solutions. Veteran troubleshooters are inducted, as the Prime Minister seeks out-of-box solutions.

Eventually only 3 sticking points remain to threaten compromise: the prime minister’s inclusion in the ombudsman’s (lokpal) purview, similar ombudsmen (lokayukta) for the states, and a citizen’s charter. Team Anna hinges breaking his fast on the Parliament’s vote on resolution of the three points. The Administration, averse to civil society groups dictating to Parliament, cites objections by the Opposition.

The activists appeal to the principle Opposition party to spell out their stand, and receive their support on the 3 points. Opposition parties of the right and left come together, and promise flexibility to help break the impasse. In final compromise, the Sense of Parliament resolution is introduced in both Houses, naming the three sticking points. Seven hours of intense debate on the resolution occurs in Parliament while the nation watches proceedings with bated breath. 

No individual votes follow, but members on both sides of the aisle thump their desks  to adopt it unanimously - a rare sight indeed in Parliament! A relieved Prime Minister tells newsmen: The Parliament’s will is the people’s will. Thereafter, Government’s special emissary and his group rush to the protest site, to reach Anna Hazare a copy of the resolution. He in turn, pledges to break his 12-day fast. The two sides share stage in visual confirmation that accord has been reached.

The perceptions in regions abroad appear to be that the world’s largest democracy has been brought to its knees or that India faces its own Arab Spring. After 13 days of high-voltage drama unfolding the nature of the nation’s functional democracy, we may safely disagree.

It is true that in over six decades of India’s independence, the middle-class has takes to the streets on an issue for the first time ever. Activists term it the outpouring of angst, not new political aspirations. They make no calls for anarchy, regime change, or challenge to the parliamentary system. Fact is this country’s democracy was never targeted; however, the cynical lack of accountability in political and bureaucratic circles has been impaled.

Traditionally, the middle-class remains aloof from political processes; they rarely vote, or may do so negatively. The stereotypical parliamentarian hobnobs in corporate and wealthy circles, appeases the poor before elections with sops for votes, and virtually disregards the middle groups. Their contact with constituents dissolve once the election process is over. Poll promises are forgotten, because elected members toe party lines thereafter, and focus on preserving political allegiances. Thence, their sensitivity to the wishes of the people electing them hardly exists.

The social movement may have triggered a paradigm shift in the political arena,  orientating towards participatory governance.  The surprise result of the exercise has been the dramatic rise of young India.

It is significant that the youth, educated and articulate, carry the fight against corruption on their shoulders. Inspired by the notion of nation building they volunteer services to ensure the movement’s smooth progress. Despite thousands of people congregating, sloganeering, waving the national flag, and holding candlelight vigils, there are no reports of the anticipated mass violence. The trademark Gandhi cap becomes a statement of purpose rather than of fashion, as they identify with the inscribed catchphrase, I am Anna. 

It is just as significant that ways to resolve the standoffs seem to emerge after the young members of Parliament jump into the fray. Many of this youth brigade also choose to defy tradition. They dare to speak their minds in support of social change. They grasp initiative to understand the thrust of the movement, and to acquaint senior leaders with the seriousness of the issue.

We see no losers in this Indian unrest. A people culturally grounded in moral values are unlikely to invest in the dissolution of revered institutions of State. They are however, determined to evolve with the times, in tune with the present age of global partnerships and collaborations. We may have been witness instead, to the restoration of roles and boundaries between the people, the Parliament and the Government. It perhaps bodes well for the future that the citizens of India have been awakened to their rights in the democratic system, and to the more crucial realization that rights include responsibilities.

References for this post:

1. Thottam, Jyoti. "Anna Hazare: How One Activist Brought the World's Largest Democracy to Its Knees" time.com. Time. August 17, 2011. 
2. de Bendern, Paul. “India faces risk of its own Arab Spring over anti-graft protests” reuters.com. Reuters. Aug 17, 2011. 

Endangered species, the super-rich!

Democratic freedoms seem to mean different things to different people, as events in different countries show. On the recent riots in London, we posted the thought that, among the socially disadvantaged, long-term frustrations with systemic inequality, may have finally boiled over into displays of violent dissent.The taxpaying public affected by the unrest has had little sympathy for it; the super-rich has remained cocooned. 

To sections of society, the sudden budget cuts could have felt like the last straw in the suspension of civil rights. However, reader from UK argues that benefits have been the actual source of the problem, having largely nurtured grifters seeking to appropriate what they do not earn. Their freebies threatened, these people planned the criminal activities.

He shares with us his indignation:

In Britain we are faced with reducing a huge debt and everyone is paying the price… benefits are one of the causes of the debt in the first place … Here even those with nothing can achieve a better standard of living IF THEY CHOOSE TO WORK HARD but many don't [and] they choose to take money and do nothing. There are some who cannot achieve anything and need help but there are also many who just can't be bothered.

The perception there is not so much of spontaneity in the protests, as of deliberately orchestrated lawlessness. Organized groups of criminal elements fanned out to stretch police resources thin, so that the looting could continue without inference. 

Our incensed reader adds:

… it's a good thing I'm not mayor of London otherwise I think I may have used Chinese or Syrian tactics and issued machine guns to the police and told them to fire at the knees and then arrested those people in hospital.

The palpable disgust of the salaried class probably stems from the economic pressures placed on them. In the dodgy economy, they are asked to share sacrifices with austerity measures. They carry the brunt of the tax burden, and as they see it, it is their contributions that ensure survival of the non-payers.

Powers-that-be perceive broken sections in society. They do not however, perceive the sustained political and corporate contributions to the moral collapse. The general solution resolved seems to be to stamp out the gangs with stiff sentencing of the looters caught on camera, and further cuts in their benefits.

But these stern measures would do nothing to address the searing sense of deprivation. Rather, the administration’s iron hand would underscore their disconnect with the ordinary population - pejoratively, the underclass. The social alienation that already exists may even be compounded as criminality in the targeted groups.

Meanwhile political establishments tend to coddle their super-rich. The tax payments of the moneyed class are minimal, which bloats their returns on investments. This tacit political support of the social hierarchy has widens its divides, with the rich simply getting richer. Billionaires in fact, are protected as if they are endangered species.

Warren Buffet comments:

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks … 

The Western perspective generally is pro-business, and the prevailing social climate relentlessly projects consumerism. Media entertainment and advertising tend to portray acquisitions as the most important goal in life, at the expense of honest human achievement.  

Booker points out:

Today, whenever my world-weary eyes alight on a "youth show" it merely resembles a glossily edited advert for celebrity lifestyles, co-starring a jet-ski and a tower of gold. And regardless of the time slot, every other commercial shrieks that I deserve the best of everything. I and I alone.

When sensation and consumption pervades the environment around them, few can escape the social learning. Consumerism burns in the hearts of the have-nots, especially the youth, although they have not the ready means to fulfill wants. It needed but a slight push to tip over the building dissatisfaction - and so it happened in the mass looting of consumer goods.

Severe punishments hardly come across as the best way to fix what seems broken in the emotional mind. Ordinary residents in parts of the city are instead applying a much more novel balm to social wounds – they continue to adorn walls with post-it notes. Placed on damaged buildings by the community’s silent majority, the messages form a mosaic of human feelings. Social psychologists consider the visual impact of the daubs of colour the critical, public counteraction to aggression.

Barford reports:

"Charming, sentimental, concerned, non-destructive, clever, responsible and recyclable, these Post-it messages represent very different values to those so atrociously revealed last week … human beings use visual markings to claim areas - so people are partly reclaiming their streets by putting down a territorial element" …

The completely non-threatening message boards not only invite participation, they also spread comfort and solidarity among the people, healing the trauma. During the riots, many individuals lost touch with themselves, as violence became their only way to communicate. The walls of love, with their reminders of eternal human values, may serve to relocate communities.

The super-rich of the land also need reminding that citizenship is an important social responsibility. In place of selfish self-interest and extraordinary breaks, they need to exercise their democratic freedoms to sacrifice and share with the less fortunate others of society. Perhaps then the pains of social divides may cease, and us-and-them groupings be rendered obsolete in Diversity. 

References for this post:

1. Barford, Vanessa. “England riots: What are the Post-it note 'love walls' all about?” bbc.co.uk. BBC News. 17 August 2011. 
2. Booker, Charlie. “How to prevent more riots” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 14 August 2011. 
3. Buffet, Warren E. “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich” nytimes.com. The New York Times. August 14, 2011. 
4. “England riots: Broken society is top priority – Cameron” bbc.co.uk. BBC News. 15 August 2011. 
5. Gilligan, Andrew. “London riots were orchestrated by outsiders” telegraph.co.uk. The Telegraph. 21 Aug 2011. 
6. Power, Nina. “There is a context to London's riots that can't be ignored” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 8 August 2011.